(01-15-2016 03:11 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 03:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 01:48 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 01:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 01:04 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  I'd say this smear piece was put to rest last night as well as the birther smear.

Right, and nobody talks about Obama's birth anymore since he released his birth certificate.

Cruz has never lied about being born in Canada.

Was he really born in Canada though? He looks Cuban to me. Has he shown his birth certificate? And was his mother really an American Citizen when he was born? Has she proven that?

His birth certificate, along with his mother's, are both available.

I've never seen them. And have they been examined to make sure they're not fakes?

(01-15-2016 01:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 01:04 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  I'd say this smear piece was put to rest last night as well as the birther smear.

Right, and nobody talks about Obama's birth anymore since he released his birth certificate.

The issue of Obama and the Birth Certificate is moot AND dead for a variety of reasons, but questions about whether we were presented with a document created at the time of his birth or not is still valid. My mother was born in Hawaii before it was a state, and she has what I recall that Obama has... which is absolutely valid (hence the debate is dead) but it isn't the same as the birth certificate I and my children have, signed by the doctors and presented to the government at the time of the births. That's what happens when an Island who doesn't collect such things suddenly joins a nation that does. Those who note that difference are entirely correct, but also entirely off base if they think that matters as a matter of law or practice. It IS entirely possible that the document doesn't exactly represent exactly what happened.... though the probablities are essentially zero and as a practical matter, unbelievable and/or unimportant. What I mean by that is that according to her parents, a friend of my mother's was born on the 5th, but her Hawaii certificate says she was born on the 6th. A simple clerical error in a manual age.

Characterizing a 'margin loan' against his own securities as if it were some sort of gift/endorsement/whatever from Goldman Sachs is not only off base as a matter of law or practice, but entirely incorrect.

He had an account at Goldman, most likely because his wife worked there... He had securities and like a large percentage of investors, had a margin loan against those securities... which doesn't require credit approval or any other such traditional 'loan' covenants.... and certainly doesn't involve a loan review/committee as a bank loan or corporate loan would.

It's an entirely different animal.

If the birthers were off base (and I agree they were) then the 'loaners' are even more so. They don't even understand what a margin loan is, they simply see 'loan' and think that means what it usually means.

(01-15-2016 03:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 01:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 01:04 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  I'd say this smear piece was put to rest last night as well as the birther smear.

Right, and nobody talks about Obama's birth anymore since he released his birth certificate.

The issue of Obama and the Birth Certificate is moot AND dead for a variety of reasons, but questions about whether we were presented with a document created at the time of his birth or not is still valid. My mother was born in Hawaii before it was a state, and she has what I recall that Obama has... which is absolutely valid (hence the debate is dead) but it isn't the same as the birth certificate I and my children have, signed by the doctors and presented to the government at the time of the births. That's what happens when an Island who doesn't collect such things suddenly joins a nation that does. Those who note that difference are entirely correct, but also entirely off base if they think that matters as a matter of law or practice. It IS entirely possible that the document doesn't exactly represent exactly what happened.... though the probablities are essentially zero and as a practical matter, unbelievable and/or unimportant. What I mean by that is that according to her parents, a friend of my mother's was born on the 5th, but her Hawaii certificate says she was born on the 6th. A simple clerical error in a manual age.

Characterizing a 'margin loan' against his own securities as if it were some sort of gift/endorsement/whatever from Goldman Sachs is not only off base as a matter of law or practice, but entirely incorrect.

He had an account at Goldman, most likely because his wife worked there... He had securities and like a large percentage of investors, had a margin loan against those securities... which doesn't require credit approval or any other such traditional 'loan' covenants.... and certainly doesn't involve a loan review/committee as a bank loan or corporate loan would.

It's an entirely different animal.

If the birthers were off base (and I agree they were) then the 'loaners' are even more so. They don't even understand what a margin loan is, they simply see 'loan' and think that means what it usually means.

Yep, no different than borrowing against one's 401k.

By the way, Obama's problem is and always has been that his loyalties are questionable. He spent the majority of his childhood and education in Indonesia and does not seem to have a nationalist bone in his body.

Trump was right last night. Cruz has to get this whole "natural born citizen" thing behind him because if he does get nominated the scummy Dems are sure to challenge in court. The only way that is going to happen is if the Supreme Court rules.

It doesn't matter if most of the constitutional scholars agree that Cruz is natural born, only the Supremes can make the final declaration as to what the Constitution means in the short term.

And there could be a problem with SOTUS. Some originalists believe that the natural born does indeed mean born in the USA. It could happen that the originalists, ie. Scalia, Thomas and possibly Alito, would rule against Cruz. And the liberal wing would rule against Cruz just because, well, just because they're a$$holes.

Here's a very good summary of the problem

Link

(01-15-2016 04:12 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Trump was right last night. Cruz has to get this whole "natural born citizen" thing behind him because if he does get nominated the scummy Dems are sure to challenge in court. The only way that is going to happen is if the Supreme Court rules.

It doesn't matter if most of the constitutional scholars agree that Cruz is natural born, only the Supremes can make the final declaration as to what the Constitution means in the short term.

And there could be a problem with SOTUS. Some originalists believe that the natural born does indeed mean born in the USA. It could happen that the originalists, ie. Scalia, Thomas and possibly Alito, would rule against Cruz. And the liberal wing would rule against Cruz just because, well, just because they're a$$holes.

Here's a very good summary of the problem

Link

What happened to all of the Obama legal challenges?

(01-15-2016 03:42 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 03:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 01:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 01:04 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  I'd say this smear piece was put to rest last night as well as the birther smear.

Right, and nobody talks about Obama's birth anymore since he released his birth certificate.

The issue of Obama and the Birth Certificate is moot AND dead for a variety of reasons, but questions about whether we were presented with a document created at the time of his birth or not is still valid. My mother was born in Hawaii before it was a state, and she has what I recall that Obama has... which is absolutely valid (hence the debate is dead) but it isn't the same as the birth certificate I and my children have, signed by the doctors and presented to the government at the time of the births. That's what happens when an Island who doesn't collect such things suddenly joins a nation that does. Those who note that difference are entirely correct, but also entirely off base if they think that matters as a matter of law or practice. It IS entirely possible that the document doesn't exactly represent exactly what happened.... though the probablities are essentially zero and as a practical matter, unbelievable and/or unimportant. What I mean by that is that according to her parents, a friend of my mother's was born on the 5th, but her Hawaii certificate says she was born on the 6th. A simple clerical error in a manual age.

Characterizing a 'margin loan' against his own securities as if it were some sort of gift/endorsement/whatever from Goldman Sachs is not only off base as a matter of law or practice, but entirely incorrect.

He had an account at Goldman, most likely because his wife worked there... He had securities and like a large percentage of investors, had a margin loan against those securities... which doesn't require credit approval or any other such traditional 'loan' covenants.... and certainly doesn't involve a loan review/committee as a bank loan or corporate loan would.

It's an entirely different animal.

If the birthers were off base (and I agree they were) then the 'loaners' are even more so. They don't even understand what a margin loan is, they simply see 'loan' and think that means what it usually means.

Yep, no different than borrowing against one's 401k.

By the way, Obama's problem is and always has been that his loyalties are questionable. He spent the majority of his childhood and education in Indonesia and does not seem to have a nationalist bone in his body.

Most politicians' loyalties are questionable.

(01-15-2016 03:42 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 03:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 01:31 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 01:04 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  I'd say this smear piece was put to rest last night as well as the birther smear.

Right, and nobody talks about Obama's birth anymore since he released his birth certificate.

The issue of Obama and the Birth Certificate is moot AND dead for a variety of reasons, but questions about whether we were presented with a document created at the time of his birth or not is still valid. My mother was born in Hawaii before it was a state, and she has what I recall that Obama has... which is absolutely valid (hence the debate is dead) but it isn't the same as the birth certificate I and my children have, signed by the doctors and presented to the government at the time of the births. That's what happens when an Island who doesn't collect such things suddenly joins a nation that does. Those who note that difference are entirely correct, but also entirely off base if they think that matters as a matter of law or practice. It IS entirely possible that the document doesn't exactly represent exactly what happened.... though the probablities are essentially zero and as a practical matter, unbelievable and/or unimportant. What I mean by that is that according to her parents, a friend of my mother's was born on the 5th, but her Hawaii certificate says she was born on the 6th. A simple clerical error in a manual age.

Characterizing a 'margin loan' against his own securities as if it were some sort of gift/endorsement/whatever from Goldman Sachs is not only off base as a matter of law or practice, but entirely incorrect.

He had an account at Goldman, most likely because his wife worked there... He had securities and like a large percentage of investors, had a margin loan against those securities... which doesn't require credit approval or any other such traditional 'loan' covenants.... and certainly doesn't involve a loan review/committee as a bank loan or corporate loan would.

It's an entirely different animal.

If the birthers were off base (and I agree they were) then the 'loaners' are even more so. They don't even understand what a margin loan is, they simply see 'loan' and think that means what it usually means.

Yep, no different than borrowing against one's 401k.

By the way, Obama's problem is and always has been that his loyalties are questionable. He spent the majority of his childhood and education in Indonesia and does not seem to have a nationalist bone in his body.

With all due respect, that's ridiculous...and your assessment of his childhood education is patently false. He was educated in Hawaii from 5th grade through 12th. He only lived in Indonesia from ages 6 through 10. He attended a public school that taught a small amount of religion.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...ic-school/

Doesn't matter to me. I'll just do a Killary voters imitation, that is, I'll ignore it.

(01-15-2016 04:14 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-15-2016 04:12 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Trump was right last night. Cruz has to get this whole "natural born citizen" thing behind him because if he does get nominated the scummy Dems are sure to challenge in court. The only way that is going to happen is if the Supreme Court rules.

It doesn't matter if most of the constitutional scholars agree that Cruz is natural born, only the Supremes can make the final declaration as to what the Constitution means in the short term.

And there could be a problem with SOTUS. Some originalists believe that the natural born does indeed mean born in the USA. It could happen that the originalists, ie. Scalia, Thomas and possibly Alito, would rule against Cruz. And the liberal wing would rule against Cruz just because, well, just because they're a$$holes.

Here's a very good summary of the problem

Link

What happened to all of the Obama legal challenges?

Most have been thrown out for either no standing or being completely bogus.

If Cruz doesn't get elected he could probably sell used cars.

Cruz's short lived momentum seems to be slipping. The Iowa governor's harsh comment on Cruz today might really hurt his chances in that state. And if Cruz doesn't win Iowa, it might take him awhile to get going again.