Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump: I’ll sue to disqualify Cruz if the attack ads don’t stop

Trump: I’ll sue to disqualify Cruz if the attack ads don’t stop

Not defending a constitutional principle, just emotionally lashing out.

https://twitter.com/rickwtyler/status/621505161681367040

It’s Friday afternoon.

This should get the holiday weekend off to a nice, quiet start.

Donald Trump, angry that negative ads are being run against him, is threatening to sue to keep Ted Cruz out of the race based on the claim that Cruz is not a “natural born Citizen” and not eligible. (h/t Hot Air)

My view is here. I *thank* the people who have emailed me to call me a traitor and fraud and hack because of my view on the subject.

Here is Trump’s Friday Twitter Trumpertantrum:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/698231571594276866?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Trump also is retweeting some some hoorahs for his threat:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/698260813866471424

BONUS QUESTION: Will The Donald also sue to keep Marco Rubio off the ballot if Marco gains momentum again and runs attack ads? After all, many of the people who claim Cruz is ineligible also claim Rubio is ineligible because his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth in the United States. (Yes, I address that claim also in my prior post.)

I think Trump should sue. I’m not just saying that. I don’t know that Trump has standing, but he’s probably closer to it than most people out there. So go ahead, Donald, file the lawsuit, don’t just threaten it. And do it against Rubio too. I’m sick of hearing the threat. Just do it.

https://twitter.com/LegInsurrection/status/698264271604490241

Maybe Ann Coulter could represent you.

Oh, wait.

https://twitter.com/anncoulter/status/302130365487804417

That was then, I guess, this is now.

The Constitution hasn’t changed, just the politics. Let that be a lesson.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens …”

Naturalization Act of 1790

Passed by the US Congress and signed by George Washington

Of course, that was then … this is now for Trump and most especially Anne Coulter.

    tom swift in reply to spartan. | February 12, 2016 at 5:59 pm

    After Marbury v. Madison, an act of Congress—even one signed by George Washington—doens’t supersede the Constitution. The Constitution sets out a few qualifications for the office of President. Our fourth Supreme Justice asserted, in no uncertain terms, that the Court was to interpret the matter, not the executive and not the legislature.

      Sanddog in reply to tom swift. | February 12, 2016 at 6:52 pm

      Which in itself, was an unconstitutional power grab.

        Skookum in reply to Sanddog. | February 14, 2016 at 9:26 pm

        Article III, Section 1 explicitly vests judicial power in the federal courts, not the executove or legislative branches. This does not excuse the other two branches from interpreting the Constitution, as did upon enacting McCain-Feingold, for example, but it’s clear that the judiciary branch has the final say in the interpretation of laws. Congress can check and balance this judicial power by placing limits on the scope of the judiciary branch’s powers.

      ecreegan in reply to tom swift. | February 12, 2016 at 7:16 pm

      All the original text of the Constitution said about citizenship was that Congress had the power to enact a uniform law for citizenship. Citizenship for everyone born here was in the Fourteenth Amendment, so that former Confederate states CNN ouldn’t deny citizenship to ex-slaves or their descendants.

      The Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t deny citizenship or natural-born citizenship to anyone else and can hardly be what was required by the Presidential natural-born requirement, since it didn’t exist when the requirement was written.

    labrat in reply to spartan. | February 12, 2016 at 6:27 pm

    This scenario came to my mind. Let’s say you are a (pick an enemy state) ES citizen and are in the US as a student back in the 60’s. You have a child while in school that is born in the US (neither the mother or father are US citizens). After school, you return to ES. That child grows up marries an ES citizen and has a child in ES. That child decides to go to school in the US, decides he likes it and stays. Is he a NBC eligible to run for President? Should he be?

      labrat in reply to labrat. | February 12, 2016 at 6:38 pm

      When I play the logic out in my mind, once born in the US all of your subsequent progeny become NBC’s by this logic. Am I wrong? Am I missing something?

        Milhouse in reply to labrat. | February 14, 2016 at 9:02 am

        Yes, you’re missing the fact that a child born abroad with only one US citizen parent is only a citizen if that parent lived in the USA for at least 5 years, and at least 2 years after the age of 14. See here.

      Milhouse in reply to labrat. | February 14, 2016 at 9:00 am

      No, in that scenario your grandchild would not be a US citizen, unless your child spent at least five years in the USA, and at least two years after the age of 14.

    Except in 1795 the act was changed and the grant of natural born cituzen status was REMOVED and it has never been put back in ever.

    Also note that absent an act of congress a child born to citizen outside of country was no kind of citizen. Since 1795 the kind of citizenship grated by the naturalization act was NOT natural born cituzenship. That ONLY happened from 1790 to 1795.

      Sanddog in reply to Gary Britt. | February 12, 2016 at 6:55 pm

      Go ahead and show us the exact clause in the federal code that defines natural born citizen.

        How about showing me in the code where it says a child born outside country to a citizen is a natural born citizen. It was in the code ffom 1790 to 1795 but in 1795 it was removed and thereafter natural born citizen status was not conferred upon such foreign birn children.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 12, 2016 at 7:38 pm

      You NEEEEEED to get with Mr. Establishment, and FILE.

      Don’t talk about it. Someone might call you a “pussy”.

      DO IT…!!!

      spartan in reply to Gary Britt. | February 12, 2016 at 8:15 pm

      Hmmm ….I guess the Congressional Research Service did not get your memo (figure of speech). They wrote a paper on the subject.

      I guess the Illinois Board of Elections did not get your memo (figure of speech again) either. They have ruled that Cruz is eligible to be POTUS.

      Perhaps, it just might be one yuuuge conspiracy where everyone is wrong but you and your ilk are right.

        Did the congressional research service rely on tbe now repealed and replaced 1790 act li I e you did in your original post? The Illinois election board carries no weight whatsoever.

          spartan in reply to Gary Britt. | February 12, 2016 at 10:37 pm

          Serious question??

          Have all the cranks from the Ron Paul campaign from 2008 and 2012 found a home with Trump?

          To paraphrase, Daniel Patrick Moynihan: You may be entitled to your set of arguments, but you certainly are not entitled to your set of facts.

          So you have no flocking clue what you are talking about when you post quotes from an act of congress from 1790 that was repealed and replaced in 1795 as though the 1790 act was still the law of the land, and then rather than admit you kniw absolutely nothing about the law or this matter you just piss on yourself with irrelevant ramblings about Rand Paul

          Gary, you do know, I hope, that Trump believes Cruz is eligible. Why do you think he’s not suing now or hasn’t done so before now? He is threatening this now only to make Cruz back off; it’s a sort of bully threat designed to get a desired result. Trump has stated that he believes, and his large team of Constitutional lawyers believe, Cruz is eligible. Trump is counting on Cruz backing down because that’s what his targets–usually nobody losers like Rosie O’Donnell do–back down.

          This is red meat thrown to true Trump Chumps who can’t think for themselves. That’s not you, though, right? You know the difference between what Trump believes and what he’s willing to do to get his way? And you must see that can’t be good for our country?

          What doez what Trump believes have to do with what I’ve posted about the law. I don’t know what Trump believes. He probably believes like I do and Laurence Tribe believes that Cruz is NOT a natural born citizen under the original intent of constitution but odds are liberal judges today would disregard the words and meaning of the constitution and rule he is a NBC.

          I happen to believe that when the founders found it necessary to provide in the 1790 Act that a foreign born child to citizen would be deemed to bd natural born citizen is a very clear indication that the founders believed that but for the 1790 act a child born outside the ysa to citizen was not a natural born citizen. Then it v follows that when 5 years later the 1795 act removed the deemed to be natural born citizen language and that change can’t be ignored and not given effect. So I believe that from 1795 forward a foreign born child was a citizen but NOT a natural born citizen. Any other interpretation ignores and renders without purpose and effect the change in the statutory language in 1795.

          gulfbreeze in reply to Gary Britt. | February 13, 2016 at 5:11 am

          “Did the congressional research service rely on tbe now repealed and replaced 1790 act li I e you did in your original post?” (sic)

          The CRS Report from 2011 was updated in January of 2016, and incorporated new material relevant to Cruz (who is not mentioned by name). Just as in the 2011 report, the 1790 and 1795 statutes are addressed in this new version (see below including footnotes):

          http://bit.ly/1QdwWC7

          From:
          Qualifications for President and the “Natural
          Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement
          Jack Maskell
          Legislative Attorney
          January 11, 2016

          (from page 20)

          “With respect to the common or general meaning of the term “natural born” to the framers of the Constitution in the context of those born abroad to U.S. citizens, it may be significant to note that the first Congress, under its express constitutional authority “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” (94) enacted the Naturalization Act of 1790. (95) The first of several such acts, this 1790 statute stated that

          ” ‘The children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States….’ (96)

          “This early congressional act provides some argument that the term ‘natural born’ citizen was seen to include more than merely the ‘native born,’ that is, those born in the country (in accordance with the common law principle of jus soli), but also to include the long-standing English statutory recognition of citizenship by descent through one’s father when an individual is born abroad, that is, all of those who are citizens ‘at birth’ or ‘by birth.’ The significance of such a statute passed by the first Congress was, of course, the fact that many of the framers of the Constitution were Members of that first Congress, as well as the fact that the first Congress’s understanding of the meaning of the terms of the Constitution was most contemporaneous in time with the document’s adoption. One author has noted that of the ‘Committee of Eleven,’ which first proposed to the Convention of 1787 the eligibility requirement of being a ‘natural born’ citizen, 8 of the 11 committee members were in that first Congress, and none stated objections to or disagreement with the characterization of the term “natural born” by statute by the Congress. (97)
          “The Supreme Court has expressly noted the weight of authority of early actions of the first Congress in explicating portions of the Constitution because of the make-up of that Congress, and its proximity in time to the Convention. As noted by the Court, an act “passed by the first Congress assembled under the Constitution, many of whose members had taken part in framing that instrument, …is contemporaneous and weighty evidence of its true meaning.” (98)
          __________________________
          (footnotes)
          94 U.S. CONST. art. I, §8, cl. 4.
          95 Act of March 26, 1790, ch. 3, 1 Stat. 103, 104.
          96 The 1790 statute was repealed and superseded by a 1795 naturalization statute which omitted the phrase “natural born.” Act of January 29, 1795, ch. 20, 1 Stat. 414, 415. There is no legislative history indicating the reason for the deletion of that term; however, in that statute the phrase “shall be considered as citizens” referred to the status of minor children derivatively naturalized upon the naturalization of their parents, who are not “natural born,” as well as to the children born abroad to U.S. citizens, so it is possible that the deletion is merely a stylistic/grammatical decision.
          97 Lohman, 36 GONZAGA LAW REVIEW at 371.
          98 Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888); Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 788-791 (1983). See also Michel v. Anderson, 14 F.3d 623, 631 (D.C. Cir. 1994): “Although the actions of the early congresses are not a perfect indicator of the Framers’ intent, those actions provide some indications of the views held by the Framers, given the propinquity of the congresses and the framing and the presence of a number of Framers in those congresses.”
          __________________________

          gulfbreeze in reply to Gary Britt. | February 13, 2016 at 6:46 am

          Also in the 2016 CRS report, one can more quickly cover all of the relevant sections regarding citizenship of those born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents by simply searching for the term “abroad”.

          Gulfbreeze I don’t see anything in what you quoted from CRS that addresses the fact that the 1795 Act removed the grant of natural born citizen status from the naturalization act. Nor do I see there any attempt to explain how the change in the statutory language in 1795 sbould be treated as though it changed absolutely nothing and to justify pretending that congress did not intend any change about the award of natural born citizen status when congress removed reference to natural born citizen status from the statute.

          One has to violate basic rules of statutory construction to argue that while congress in 1795 made significant changes to the statutory language that congress did not really intend to change anything at all with tbose changes. Neither this nor has any scholar writing on this issue has from what I’ve seen ever attempted to address why the removal of of the grant of natural born citizen status in the 1795 act didn’t do exactly that (remove the grant of natural born citizen status). No attempt to argue that while the congress significantly changed the wording of the statute in 1795 they were just playing around for no reason and didn’t really mean to change anything when they changed the statute.

          Color me not convinced. The statutes are quite clear. 1790 to 1795 the act said foreign born child to citizen would be deemed to be natural born citizen. 1795 forward foreign born child to citizen is a citizen. A naturalized cituzen pursuant to the naturalization act BUT is NOT a natural born citizen.

          gulfbreeze in reply to Gary Britt. | February 15, 2016 at 12:54 am

          Gary, the purpose of my post was to show where the CRS reports from 2011 and 2016 addressed the 1790-1795 issue, not to indicate that the report used the issue to support a position. As such, my post intended to be informative, not conclusive. IMO, conclusions are the prerogative of the readers of the report, not the author. The same holds true for my posts…hopefully, they’re informative, and readers should make up their own minds on issues. I usually don’t intend to persuade anyone to reach my conclusions, as I’m here to learn, not convince others I’m right in my conclusions.

Trump has a strong self-destructive streak. After every victory, he reverts to childish temper tantrums .Most undignified. This yo-you behavior will be his undoing.

    Radegunda in reply to Mercyneal. | February 12, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    He also has a fervent core of besotted fans who, strangely enough, regard his tantrums and bullying as the epitome of leadership.

    Trump fans think he’s the Caped Crusader who will only ever lash out at their enemies. They’re quite blind to how quickly Trump turns friends into foes.

Trump knows how to dominate the news.

Unlike, say, Jim Gilmore.

An easy way to dominate the news is by being silly. This is not a serious drawback of the tactic—domination is domination no matter how it’s achieved.

Being criticized, being mocked, being derided—all these things are survivable. But like it or not, what is not survivable in electoral politics is being ignored. Trump is taking some easy steps to ensure that doesn’t happen to him. Probably not necessary in his case, but maybe it’s a particularly slow Friday.

    Radegunda in reply to tom swift. | February 12, 2016 at 6:35 pm

    “Domination is domination no matter how it’s achieved.”

    That’s a distillation of the Trumpian philosophy of life: Trump must dominate all, by any means necessary.

Trumph the Insult Dog, the would-be leader of the Litigious Free World, shakes out out his jowls and barks, “Bow Wowzer Look At Me! Be scared! Be terrified!” and then runs behind the curtains for cover.

Trump. Trump. I know I’ve heard that name before. He’s some TV guy who insults politicians, right?

Prof Jacobson,
I’ll skip the “emotional outlash” business and just say
though I’m 99% willing to believe Cruz may be elegible, I’m not a lawyer but believe it IS a legitimate issue to be answered definitively. Frankly, it would have been best/prudent for Cruz to resolve it prior to his running.

Call it cynical, sarcastic, bitter, whatever, it’s “good” that it’s being brought up now BEFORE the Dems can do damage during the General, in the event Cruz is the nominee.

    inspectorudy in reply to Kauf Buch. | February 12, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    He couldn’t get it resolved without some sort of standing. The law doesn’t say that a non NBC cannot RUN for president. Only that he cannot be president. So to get standing Cruz would have to win the nomination, be elected and then be told by someone from on high that he cannot serve. Then he would have standing and could take it to court. Is that what you are talking about? If that is the case then someone will have to win the presidency just to take it to court. Not very likely.

    ecreegan in reply to Kauf Buch. | February 13, 2016 at 7:19 am

    Cruz only has standing to sue if some state decides he’s not eligible and refuses to put him on the ballot. Absent that, there’s nothing for a case to be about and the courts don’t rule on hypotheticals. Trump, otoh, could sue to have Cruz taken off the ballot and we’d see if the courts thought he had standing. I wish he would, it would be nice to settle it. If he won’t do that, he should stfu and stop making empty threats.

Maybe Huffington Post should start reporting his antics in the entertainment section again. He is not a serious person.

    Radegunda in reply to windbag. | February 12, 2016 at 6:42 pm

    A large portion of the electorate is unserious too.

    They’ve watched every episode of The Apprentice, and now they can’t wait for Trump to “fire half of Washington D.C.” and thereby instantly solved the debt problem (as one Trumpster fantasized). Or they want Trump to fire everyone, crush the “establishment,” and rule by decree — in the manner that most of them deplore when Obama does it.

    Then there are Trump’s golf buddies with big microphones who purport to be serious, but they appear to believe that staying in Trump’s favor is the most important thing right now.

As far as I know, there is nothing that stops someone who is not eligible for running for President. The restriction is on the Electors casting the ballots.

What, exactly, would Trump be suing over, even if he believed Cruz was ineligible.

    rinardman in reply to malclave. | February 12, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    I *thank* the people who have emailed me to call me a traitor and fraud and hack because of my view on the subject.

    Professor, I thank you for your trolling of the Trump jockstraps. Reading their comments has become the best, funniest entertainment I’ve come across in a long time. 😀

Professor take the death threats etc you received and double or triple that amount to get what you would have received from the Cruzbots if your opinion had gone the other way.

    inspectorudy in reply to Gary Britt. | February 12, 2016 at 7:03 pm

    As usual you are talking out your a$$. People who like Cruz do so because he presents his opinions and vision in a well thought out way. He actually has answers with meat on the bones when asked about his plans. Trump on the other hand only says that he will make things better or wonderful. He’ll make the US military the biggest it has ever been. He is going to replace obamacare with a wonnerful program. He is going to make America great again. One simple question; how?

      Building Wall, eforcing ou laws, deporting illegals, getting rid of bad trade deals. Not supporting anti american trade deals like TPP/obamatrade like Cruz supports, lower tax rates, getting rid of many regulations, getting rid of much of EPA and dept of education.

      His detailed tax and immigration plans are on his website. Jeff Sessions approves and endorses Trump’s immigration and trade deal plans.

      Trump was first and still the only candidate to respond to Jeff Sessions trade deal test questions. Cruz is still trying to figure out what he claims he believes in or isn’t smart enough to answer.

      If you don’t what trump stands for then you are just willfully ignorant.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 12, 2016 at 7:49 pm

        “If you don’t what trump stands for then you are just willfully ignorant.”

        OR you’ve made the cardinal error of listening to T-rump, who ALSO doesn’t know what he stands for from day-to-day, instead of just BELIEVING…

        like in “Hope and Change”. Being a cultist makes life SO much more simple!

        Tyrconnell in reply to Gary Britt. | February 12, 2016 at 8:22 pm

        deporting illegals, (bringing them back as legal immigrants)

        You forgot something there, I added it for you.

          You added nothing but a lie.

          Radegunda in reply to Tyrconnell. | February 12, 2016 at 9:49 pm

          Gary’s the guy who called me a liar because I declined to confirm his patently moronic assumptions about my real political views (which he must think I’ve been cleverly disguising for years just to attack his superhero).

          If Gary calls you a liar, it’s like a badge of honor.

        Radegunda in reply to Gary Britt. | February 12, 2016 at 10:01 pm

        “I am very capable of changing into anything I want to change into,” quoth Donald the Great — who has indeed demonstrated that he’s capable of changing his supposed principles rapidly.

        But Gary imagines that Trump is the one person who will be totally unwavering on whatever Gary selects out of the fluid stream of Trumpism, whose only steady principle is that Trump firmly believes in his own towering greatness.

        And Trump apparently wants to do a Smoot-Hawley v.2. That’ll be great.

        After all, Donald the Great believed that Obama had a “deep understanding” of economics and that the bailouts and trillion-dollar “stimulus” were very wise policy, when mere mortals thought it would prolong the stagnation and balloon the debt — so he must know stuff that we don’t.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Gary Britt. | February 13, 2016 at 2:50 am

        “Building Wall, eforcing ou laws, deporting illegals, getting rid of bad trade deals. Not supporting anti american trade deals like TPP/obamatrade like Cruz supports, lower tax rates, getting rid of many regulations, getting rid of much of EPA and dept of education.”

        Most of which you can find Trump saying the exact opposite of with in the last 2 to 3 years, with a simple google search. All of the “conservative values” Trump is spouting now are lies being used to get elected, none of which he has any intention of actually doing. Its funny he only “changed” his mind just in time to try for the republican nomination.

          Gremlin what puts the lie to the claim that Trump is not sincere in what he says on campaign trail and that he just says stuff to get elected is this undisputed fact.

          When Trump announced as part of his announcement before anybody had a clue about the popularity of the wall and deportation issues Trump came out for the wall, for deportation, and pronounced mexico was shipping their criminals rapists and murderers to USA. These statements were widely believed to be extremely unpopular and were widely believed to be the immediate end of Trump’s campaign.

          So you see that is what shows Trump is saying what he now believes. Because NOBODY who was trying to just say something to be popular would have ever in a million years said what Trump said when he annonced his candidacy.

          Now if you want to find someone who says things just t o be popular. Then look to ME TOO TEDDY CRUZ. Who months after Trump came out talking about a wall and who after writing wall street journal article extolling the virtues of TPA TPP and obamatrade did a double reverse flip flop in the layout position and suddenly decided obamatrade was caught up in politics and he needed to delay his support for obamatrade until after the election.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gremlin1974. | February 13, 2016 at 2:32 pm

          What an amazing pack of lies.

          First, Cruz was calling for a wall years ago.

          Second, one of those NR “squishes”, Jonah Goldberg was calling for a wall a DECADE ago.

          Third, Der Donald DOES have a really uncanny knack for reading what people want to hear. You can watch him turn on a dime to give it to them, contradicting what he said only moment before.

          Forth, Der Donald is an American oligarch. He can afford the best in market research and focus groups. He’s used them extensively to shape his messaging…or he’s a perfect moron if he hasn’t.

          You’re fawning, religious cult belief in this puke is disgusting in anyone who thinks of themselves as a free American.

          Ragspierre you are lying for Cruz again. Cruz never ecer not even to this day does he say he will build 1000 to 1500 miles of 30ft high reinforced concrete wall. He talks about fencing the kind of useless fencing we have in some places now. The wall and immigration are so important to Cruz that he barely mentioned 10 words about immigration in his announcement speech. He never mentioned a wall at all. His only words were to “secure the border” the same useless platitudes of Rubio, McCain and Graham.

          And now you post Trump is a Genius who knows things nobody else knows.

          And nothing more laughable than a kool aid supporter of the bible thumping show america the face of the god he serves and awaken his army of body of christ soldiers Ted Cruz accusing someone else of worshipping a false god.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gremlin1974. | February 13, 2016 at 4:29 pm

          “Cruz never ecer not even to this day does he say he will build 1000 to 1500 miles of 30ft high reinforced concrete wall.”

          And I never said he said any such moronic thing. Liar. Has Der Donald promised you 1000 to 1500 miles of 30ft high reinforced concrete wall?

          Which was it, T-rump sucker? 1000 miles? Or 1500 miles? Big difference, cult follower. Such a moron…

        Arminius in reply to Gary Britt. | February 13, 2016 at 7:08 pm

        Trump is a con man. He stands for Donald Trump. And he has a track record of saying whatever he had to say to con people out of their money.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/nyregion/feeling-deceived-over-homes-that-were-trump-in-name-only.html

        “…Far from the New York City towers that bear his name, in cities like Tampa, Fla., and Philadelphia, house hunters clamor to buy into his developments, sometimes exhausting credit lines and wiping out savings for a chance to own a piece of his gilded empire.

        But as Mr. Trump, who is weighing a bid for the White House, has zealously sought to cash in on his name, he has entered into arrangements that home buyers describe as deliberately deceptive — designed, they said, to exploit the very thing that drew them to his buildings: their faith in him.

        Over the last few years, according to interviews and hundreds of pages of court documents, the real estate mogul has aggressively marketed several luxury high-rises as “Trump properties” or “signature Trump” buildings, with names like Trump Tower and Trump International — even making appearances at the properties to woo buyers. The strong indication of his involvement as a developer generated waves of media attention and commanded premium prices.

        …’The last thing you ever expect is that somebody you revere will mislead you,’ said Alex Davis, 38, who bought a $500,000 unit in Trump International Hotel and Tower Fort Lauderdale, a waterfront property that Mr. Trump described in marketing materials as ‘my latest development’ and compared to the Trump tower on Central Park in Manhattan.”

        Trump did the same thing thing with his “university.” Whereas with these properties and developments he would LIE to investors and say they were his, “my latest development,” He would LIE and say people who invested in his “university” courses and say these people would be learning the Donald Trump real estate investing method from instructors hand-picked by the Donald himself. A judge in one of the many lawsuits from sea to shining sea against Trump “University” compared this ripoff to the Madoff scam.

        None of what Trump said in his marketing materials was true. Not a word. He’s ripped a lot of people off that way.

        He knows what people want to hear. So he’ll tell them what they want to hear, then laugh all the way to the bank. Now he’s always done. Now he’s telling people like you exactly the BS you want to hear. This time he may just laugh all the way to the White House.

        And you’re falling for the same tired old Trump con. You still think what Trump says in his marketing materials is remotely true.

        Here’s what’s going to happen if he wins the presidency. You’ll find out he scammed you. He’ll say you’re the sucker. You’re also stupid, a loser, a slob, a moron, etc.

        Because that’s how he treats everybody he scams. He’ll also lie about you. Again, that’s just what he does.

        Oh, you know what he also does? When people sue him because of his various frauds, he countersues. He lost one of countersuits last year in CA (to a plaintiff suing him for his Trump “University” fraud) because those kinds of malicious suits intended only to intimidate his victims into shutting up are now illegal in many if not most states due to anti-SLAPP laws.

        But if he’s the President he’ll have lots of other ways to intimidate and bully his critics/victims into shutting up.

        Arminius in reply to Gary Britt. | February 13, 2016 at 8:29 pm

        Well as long as we’re throwing accusations about who is the liar around, I know Trump is a liar. And he employs people to spread his lies on his behalf. And I can prove it. Earlier @7:08 I linked to a NYT article about Trumps many scams.

        Notice the date. It’s from May 2011. Here’s what the
        Better Business Bureau had to say about Trump’s “University” in 2010, as the BBB could not have yet given Trump’s “university” a rating since 2011 wasn’t even half over at the time:

        “Dozens of complaints about both schools have rolled into the offices of attorneys general in Florida, Texas, New York and Illinois, officials said. And last year, the Better Business Bureau gave Trump University a D-minus, the second-lowest grade on its scale, after it fielded 23 complaints.”

        Of course Trump University never had a 2011 BBB rating since it went out of business in 2010 as former clients as state AGs finally caught up with the fraudsters.

        Here’s what Trump’s mouthpiece claimed the BBB had to say about Trump lost a nearly million dollar judgement because he violated California’s anti-SLAPP law.

        http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/04/20/798-000-award-against-trump-university.htm

        “…Despite Trump University being rated as ‘excellent’ by 98% of its students and having an ‘A’ rating with the BBB [Better Business Bureau]…”

        This is just a flat lie. Within the only four years could have had a BBB rating it was down to a ‘D’ as people discovered the scam. ‘D’ was Trump “University’s” lifetime score. That’s what it ended up with.

        So Trump knows he can lie to you, Gary. Just like he’s lied to a lot of other suckers. As long as he’s not under oath, he and his mouthpieces can lie.

        And he’s not under oath on the campaign trail.

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 12, 2016 at 7:09 pm

    See, that’s funny.

    YOU are the only poster here who has made a physical threat on another poster in my memory.

    You are such a liar…

      You are an ignorant vulgar liar.

        Radegunda in reply to Gary Britt. | February 12, 2016 at 10:09 pm

        You called me a liar on the basis of completely unfounded and utterly preposterous guesses as to my real (very deeply hidden) beliefs. And you did it when you evidently could not refute unpleasant facts about your hero.

        So when you call someone a liar, it’s the same kind of unhinged lashing-out that we see from Trump himself.

          I called you a liar because you are a LIAR. Whom do you support for president is it Hillary or the other communist.

          You post constant lies and FUD all over LI. If you want to regain any credibiluty just answer a simple question.

          Whom do you support for President?

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 12, 2016 at 7:44 pm

      I don’t lie, Bierhall Bigot Britt. That’s your province.

      I’ve got the post. You want me to link to it?

        Please do. I want to be reminded of what it is that causes you to have to change your depends.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 12, 2016 at 8:29 pm

        Bierhall, you remember the time you lost your sh1t entirely and threatened to come get me.

        What date was that? It was close enough to Christmas that I thought luring you here and having you busted would be sort…I dunno…dark.

        I’ll find it, or would you like to lie about it some more?

T-rump needs to be ridiculed for his every comment.
His cult of personality is a lesson to us as to how Mao,
Mussolini, BHO, Castro etc besotted ‘children’ as a pied piper.

Suing Cruz’ qualifications is actually helping Cruz,
it will have to be an expedited hearing and when Cruz wins
Da Donald will claim that that was his intent to clear up
the issue.

    Heidi Cruz said Wednesday that her husband, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), was showing America “the face of the God that we serve”

    WOW. This is scarry stuff. Cruz “all glory to god for this victory” The insane mormon Glenn Beck. And now we have Heidi Cruz the idol worshipper saying her idol Teddy is showing America “the face of the God that we serve”

    I don’t know which is more frightening: They are saying these things because tbey are megalomaniacs thinking they are actual rea life messengers that get instructions from god or they are the kind of people who would make up lies about this stuff just to try and manipulate people in their deepest feelings to try and win an election.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/heidi-cruz-face-of-god

    Talk about cult of personality.

    showing America “the face of the God that we serve”

    That is pretty darn close to saying Cruz has god’s or Jesus’ face which is just another way of saying Cruz is god.

    What if we elect this guy and he starts showing up at the whitehouse wearing sandals and a white cotton moo moo.

    #ScarryCruz

      Radegunda in reply to Gary Britt. | February 12, 2016 at 10:17 pm

      Obviously you regard self-worship as far preferable to actual religious faith.

      You have a crush on the guy who says he has never done anything that requires forgiveness; who says that people would be “privileged” to vote for him; that “you must be so honored to be honoring me”; that he “will easily go down as the greatest president in the history of this country.”

      No other candidate for president in my lifetime — not even Obama — has been so over-the-top in his self-regard.

      Are you truly that ignorant of Christianity or are you being disingenuous?

        Are you truly that ignorant if Cryz’s christianity ir are y I u just disingenuous

        You obviously know nothing about me or my christian faith.

        Cruz makes a public spectacle of his faith and cheapens it by using it as some prop in a traveling evangelical road show campaign for material world power and money.

        That is OFFENSIVE to most christians; It is the kind of phony worthless faith of Elmer Gantry and Jimmy Swaggert.

        Then when you combine that with grandiose proclamations like showing America the face of the God we serve it is not only offensive BUT DANGEROUS. It is Jim Jones and David Koresh but they never tried to get their hands on nuclear weapons.

        The face of the God we serve; the army of christ needs to put on their christian armour; it is time for the body of christ to rise up; DONATE YOUR MONEY AT TEDCRUZ.ORG; Yep, Jimmy Swaggert. He even has employed a porn star according to reports out today.

        Now lets take a look at his particular brand of christian faith and the face of the god he serves.

        Cruz, his preacher father, and even the insane mormon Glenn Beck all follow a relatively new offshoot of christianity called Dominionism. Dominionism is a perversion of traditional christian and evangelical faith that believes that christians are ordained by god to take dominion (i.e., control) over the entire earth and not only that but that they MUST take control over the entire earth in order for Jesus to be able to return to the earth.

        Dominionism is crazy and dangerous. That is the face of the god Cruz serves.

        As an offshoot of the above, Dominionists also believe that as part of their calling to take control over the entire planet they must gather unto themselves all the material wealth of the planet unto themselves. Send your money to preacher Ted Cruz at tedcruz.org.

        Maybe it is you and your snobbish belief that you know my heart and have the true understanding of things that is the fool who will be spit out from the mouth of Jesus or worse, and maybe it is you who has no understanding of Cruz’s faith or election year theatrical prop or whatever the hell is his perverted faith.

          Bary Gitt, you make up stuff as you go, just like the little yellow man.

          The only practicing Dominionist is DJT. He believes in the eminent domain kingdom on earth.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 13, 2016 at 5:50 am

          You’re a bigoted Collectivist, Britt. You’re not a “christian”. Your religion is lying.

          Jennifer and Ragspierre as usual you have nothing of any intellectual merit to write. You can’t provide a defense for Cruz’s dominionist perversion of traditional chritian faith or his use of his supposed christian faith as a prop in his campaign for worldly power and wealth. So you fall back on lies, name calling, and character assassination. A fitting tribute to your Elmer Gantry candidate Cruz.

          Blow me bitches.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 13, 2016 at 1:01 pm

          Bierhall Bigot Britt, you’re a living, breathing parody of “Christianity”. Nobody HAS to defend anyone from your crazy-ass attacks. You’re simply a bigot. Last week or two, it was the LDS.

          Nobody watching you smear Cruz and his wife the last two days would do anything but spit on you. I sure do.

          You’ve sunk to new lows in fawning fellation of your man-crush, which I hardly thought possible.

          You are a disgusting excuse for a human being, and about as far a “thing” as I can imagine from a “christian”. But as a representative of T-rump, you excel.

          Going Brittle, give us something to defend.

          We can’t defend Ted Cruz against silly made up weirdness configured in your straw brain.

          DJT is the ONLY (Eminent Domain) Dominionist. He’s proven it!

          You will be happy to know that the action figure Mr. DJ Malleable comes with Zoolander outfits. Order your malleable candidate now.

          Aces.

          gulfbreeze in reply to Gary Britt. | February 13, 2016 at 1:26 pm

          According to some, Cruz’s theology is more specifically “Seven Mountain Dominionism” (7MD). The first link is an article written by Dr. John Fea, Chair of the Dept. of History at Messiah College, which details the specific beliefs of that segment:

          http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/04/ted-cruzs-campaign-fueled-dominionist-vision-america-commentary/

          The second link is written by a Dominionist, Dr. Joel McDurmon, who contrasts the beliefs of Dominionism vs. 7MD, stating 7MD is everything that Dominionists are accused of:

          https://americanvision.org/5130/seven-mountains-dominionism-not-the-same-brand/

          DJT is the ONLY proven (Eminent Domain) Dominionist, everything else is just obtuse speculation.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 13, 2016 at 1:52 pm

          “According to some” Jews mix the blood of Christian children in their matzo.

          That reeked of dead fish on the Gulf breeze.

          And here we have the willful ignorance of the Cruz kool aid drnkers. Both Jennifer and Radspierre know nothing about Christianity or christian theology so all they can do when presented with facts and even links is to tell more lies about people make wildly false accusations accusations and keep their eyes closed fingers in their ears while chanting Cruz the conservative Crùz the face of the god we serve.

          Ragspierre is an admitted athiest. I’m waiting for Jennifer to admit she is also an atheist. She certainly is no stranger to lying and knows nothing about christian theology. And cares even less about learning anything.

          To the christians and evangelicals reading this I would remind you to know Cruz by his fruits. His fruits are disgusting lying atheists and people who pervert the word of god until they believe they are ordained by god to rule the world and that they must use all means possible to rule the world in order to pave the way for jesus to return.

          It is the stuff of religious cults but the leader of this cult wants to have nuclear weapons and control over the entire usa military.

          It is CRAZY DANGEROUS to support Cruz.

          I’m waiting for Jennifer to admit she is also an atheist. She certainly is no stranger to lying and knows nothing about christian theology.”

          Very Gritt, I attended Moody Bible institute. I studied both Old and New Testaments and Koine Greek. Let’s rumble.

          Anyone who reads this blog knows that I am follower of the Way. Read my link, schmo, and be wise.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 13, 2016 at 5:18 pm

          “Both Jennifer and Radspierre know nothing about Christianity or christian theology…”

          Jennifer shows every sign of being a devout “walk-the-walk” Christian.

          I know a great deal about Christian doctrine. But any kid in Sunday school would know you’re a “whited sepulcher”.

          I an not an “atheist”, but I won’t call you a liar there. You’re just a stupid moron who can’t read. I have noted several times that I am “irreligious”. That is not being an “atheist”, but you called me that to smear me, as your later bullshit proves.

          I know many fine, devout people of various religions. You aren’t dog crap on any of their shoes, spunky.

      My deposition has now ended Gangrene Britt.

      Yours and Trumphs begins. Again.

    A person who thinks they are the annointed messenger of god.

    Jim Jones, David Koresh, Ted Cruz

    At least Jim Jones and David Koresh didn’t have the nuclear weapons launch codes.

    #ScarryCruz

      DJ Trumph IS the face of the false masculine.

      DJT IS the face of a condescending Swaggart male.

      DJT IS the face of misogynist machismo.

      DJT IS the face of eminent domain.

      DJT IS the face of Objectivism.

      Worship away, Bary Gitt. Sue or shut up.

“Hey, Donald Ducks (Pussy, NYC)! Don’t TALK about it. DO it, Mr. Establishment!”

Bierhall Bully Britt will handle the legal work for free.

Right, bigot?

    I’m still trying to figure out who you are more afraid of and who makes you wet your pants tge most. Me or Trump.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 12, 2016 at 8:32 pm

      What? Are you running from the legal work, Gaghdad Bob?

      Hell, I’ll volunteer to do whatever legal work Cruz needs done that I can help with.

      How ’bout you? You don’t want your man-crush to look like the pussy we know him to be, do you?

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 12, 2016 at 8:42 pm

      Oh, and to answer your question, I’m a LOT more worried about the old NE Collectivist thug and oligarch than I am about you.

      He can do real damage to the republic. You’re just a pitiful, lying sack of T-rumpian sharia. Bullies are easy.

        Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee and John Kasich have all said publicly on the debate stage that Trump is far better choice than Hillary.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 13, 2016 at 6:20 am

        Wow! THERE’S a high commendation! “Der Donald is better than Hellary!”

        By how much?

        Well, each to his own. I won’t vote for ANY Collectivist, and Der Donald IS a dangerous NE Collectivist thug. Given your exposed political proclivities and drive to support a command economy, no wonder you’re his tongue-bath boi here.

          spartan in reply to Ragspierre. | February 13, 2016 at 8:21 am

          Trumpelstiltskin vs Hillary — the campaign to elect the tallest midget.

          Like Rumpelstiltskin, Trump will make great demands to spin straw into gold. His followers are willing to pay that price. Their rage matches their master.

This falls squarely into the “OK. Go ahead.” category in my book, but I completely understand WHY Trump is doing it. When he raised the specter of this in IOWA, his poll numbers rose.

Now what he’s trying to do is squeak out just a ~little~ bit more turnout in South Carolina without actually spending time and money campaigning there. Trump wants to spend time on FLORIDA, due to the larger number of delegates, and to shore himself up against an insurgent/resurgent Rubio or the potential of a JEB! decent showing sufficient to keep him in the race.

The long and short of it is that he’ll file the suit, his attorney will monkey around for a couple of weeks, and then Cruz’ attorney will file a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, and the whole thing will have go away.

    HandyGandy in reply to Chuck Skinner. | February 12, 2016 at 10:21 pm

    So far you have come the closest but still miss some things.

    What is an undecided SC voter reading this going to think?
    1) Cruz is unrunning mean, nasty, unfair attack ads.
    Cruz has not denied the allegation. The story has not denied the
    allegation.
    The Cruzbots have not denied the allegation.

    The first thing I would say if Trump said it to me is: “I’m not
    running negative ads”. Since he is not denying it, there must
    be some truth to it.

    More so if Cruz follows your advice and says “go ahead and sue”.
    The unsaid part is “I’m going to keep running my unfair nasty
    mean attack ads so go ahead and sue.”

    2) The arguments that Trump has no standing come across as “it
    doesn’t matter whether Cruz is a NBC or not, you can’t sue”.
    BTW why can’t Trump ask for a declaratory judgement?

    3) All this argument about whether or not Cruz is a natural born
    citizen brings up some things. Cruz is canadian born. His father
    is not a citizen. His mother is half American-half Canadian.
    Smells a lot like Obama. Really do we want another Obama as
    president?

      Ragspierre in reply to HandyGandy. | February 13, 2016 at 5:54 am

      You keep proving you’re an idiot.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to HandyGandy. | February 13, 2016 at 10:17 am

      We hear this same whiny crap every election cycle which basically comes down to someone going back to the playground and sniffling and screeching “their being mean to me”.

      Never once do they address whether the ads are true or factual, not saying that they are, but that is what you should do instead of whining about it.

      Welcome to the not so nice and touchy feely world of politics. If you can’t run with the big dogs then get back under the porch.

      BTW why can’t Trump ask for a declaratory judgement?

      Sigh…. You’re straw-man argument in part 3 of your response not withstanding regarding this smelling like Obama, I’ll indulge you. I’ll try to explain this one more time (names capitalized for identification):

      TRUMP can’t ask for a declaratory judgment because he does not have “standing.” In order to have “standing,” a party must have an actual case or controversy (i.e. he must be personally injured by that case or controversy), and must meet certain other legislated or common-law requirements, depending on the individual jurisdiction.

      TRUMP can’t sue because there is no actual “case or controversy” to which TRUMP has been ~personally~ injured. The claim that CRUZ is not a “Natural Born Citizen” and is therefore ineligible to become president is not an injury specific enough to TRUMP alone. It would be called a “generalized grievance” or “generalized claim of injury” and is thus barred without being specifically legislatively created (and it would be a suit against the STATE entity).

      Worse, this would also be seen as an “advisory opinion” in the absence of any particularized injury. The Federal Courts will NOT hear such a case. see Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 31 S. Ct. 250, 55 L. Ed. 246 (1911), where the Court struck down an act of Congress that authorized the plaintiffs to sue the United States to determine the validity of certain laws.

      CRUZ does not have standing to sue either at this time, because he has not been injured. Until such time as an individual State Election arm decides that he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen, CRUZ has not suffered any injury.

      The above is why all lawsuits to date to adjudicate an individual as not being eligible to run for the presidency have spectacularly failed. The individual bringing the suit has not had a particularized injury unique (or at least reasonably so) to him/herself, and it has never been a ~denied~ candidate that has been the Plaintiff seeking relief from a finding that the candidate was ineligible based on natural born citizenship grounds.

      “Standing” is separate from “justiciability.” Standing is about whom can sue. Justiciability is about what topics the Court will stick their nose into to make a decision. Separate from no party currently having “standing” to sue, IF such party were somehow to gain standing, the Court would likely throw up it’s hands and say that this is a non-justiciable political question that has been resolved by Congress, by their determination of who is granted citizenship at birth vs who has to become a “naturalized” citizen, and therefore that the Courts have no business resolving what should rightfully be legislated by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive branch.

Two new south Carolina Polls out today. Both have the same results.

Another South Carolina poll released today shows almost the exact same results — Trump: 36%, Cruz: 19%, Rubio: 15%, Bush: 11%. Kasich: 9% — and adds the fascinating detail that Trump is leading Cruz among evangelicals by +10 points.

Trump leading Cruz among evangelicals by 10 points. Maybe Cruz forgot that god will not be mocked.

Morning Consult released its latest national poll Friday, and the news is all good for Donald Trump, whose support jumped from 38% last week to 44% support today. That puts The Donald a full +27 points ahead of second place Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
97%
, who enjoys 17% support, which is exactly where he sat last week.

Ben Carson and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
79%
are tied for 3rd place at 10%.

Carson jumped just +1 point since last week.

Rubio, however, lost -5 points — a third of his support.

Jeb Bush jumped from 6% to 8%. John Kasich doubled his support from 2% to 4%?

Trump spoke to an amazing enthusiastic huge giant crowd in Floruda tonight he and the crowd were on fire. Trump says who’s going to pay for wall? And the crowd exclaims MEXICO.. Trump asks again who’s going to pay for the wall and the crowd screams MEXICO.

It really is special. I have not seen a candidate for president have such love and respect from a crowd since Reagan. It really is Reagan all over again. The New Era Reagan. He will be a GREAT PRESIDENT.

    Trump spoke to an amazing enthusiastic huge giant crowd in Floruda tonight he and the crowd were on fire. Trump says who’s going to pay for wall? And the crowd exclaims MEXICO.. Trump asks again who’s going to pay for the wall and the crowd screams MEXICO.

    It really is special.

    “Special.”

    Radegunda in reply to Gary Britt. | February 12, 2016 at 10:27 pm

    Trump says he will EASILY be the GREATEST EVER — greater than Washington, Lincoln, Millard Fillmore, the whole crowd of losers before him.

    And if you doubt he’s the greatest, he’ll be happy tell you he’s the greatest.

    Anybody who talks like that should never be given presidential power — and citing polls of a bunch of gullible devotees who watched too many episodes of The Apprentice is not dispositive.

    But your white-hot passion for Trump is touching. Get a room already. Valentine’s Day is just ahead.

      You are a LIAR. Trump never said any such things.

      You aren’t even honest enough to tell people whom you support fir President Hillary or the other communist. And you won’t say who pays you to come here and post lies about Trump and others.

Will Donnie lie on the floor and kick his feet and beat his fists and hold his breath? No, because if he holds his breathe we can’t hear him, and he wants to maximize his annoyance levels.

The two are not connected. “Stop the negative ads or I will run negative ads against you.” Those are connected.

IF Donald Trumph really believes such a case has merit he, out of decency to the Union, needs to file it pronto. Otherwise he is discussing suing as a way to harass another candidate. Talk about a being a cheating liar. But then, Donald cheats at golf. I don’t golf, but I know plenty of golfers who are proud at how golfing demands integrity from the players. None of this NFL ‘if the ref didn’t see it it isn’t a foul’ crap in the PGA.

Next Cruz ad: See what a bully Donald is? He can’t win on merits so he threatens a suit on a matter he already has said is settled and ok. That is just being a thug. A vulgar, low-class thug.

The Cruz camp seems to be so threatened over a silly joke about Ted Cruz not being a natural-born citizen. It’s not like some big insult or anything to have been born in Canada. You would think it would be laughed off. Unless…

This latest in a long line of threats just underscores my impression of Trump as an unprincipled, precious bully. He doesn’t believe that Cruz is ineligible–indeed, has strongly made the case that Cruz IS eligible, and he doesn’t intend to sue . . . unless he doesn’t get his own stompy-footed way.

He’s so precious that anyone who disagrees with him is either stooooopid or should be sued into silent submission. Words can’t fully express the pure, icy contempt I have for Trump and his ilk.

He acts like a ten-year-old schoolyard bully. He’s a whiny, thin-skinned, self-absorbed egomaniac. I hope to God that America is not stupid enough to elect this walking disaster to the highest office in the land.

    So why are the Cruz fans getting so flipped out? These are just tweets. Why aren’t they being laughed off. Is that all it takes to be a “bully” — send out a few little tweets — and the other side freaks and wails?

      Hi janitor, actually, I pop into Trump threads from time to time to share my thoughts, and they aren’t all about Cruz (you can check the comment archives). As to this latest stompy-footed inanity, it’s just more evidence (to me, at least) that Trump is temperamentally unsuited to the highest office in the land.

      It’s one thing if he were acting on some principled belief, but he’s not. He truly believes that Cruz IS eligible (unlike his uniformed supporters who love the red meat Trump tosses out to them like a king tossing fatty cuts to the dogs). The threat is a bully tactic designed to make Cruz back down to avoid the public fight with Trump. Good grief, remember that horrible back and forth he lowered himself to with Rosie O’Donnell? He’s just a scummy street thug whose first instinct is to name-call and whose second instinct is to sue. He’s lower than low.

      Trump thinks he’s bullet-proof, and maybe he is to his most ardent, koolaid-swilling supporters, but to the rest of us, this is just petty nastiness that is far far beneath even the lowest bar Obama has set for the Office of the President.

        What do you think is “temperamentally suited”?

        Another silly parroting of liberal media talking points.

          Janitor, I’m not some squishie loser who parrots anyone. Ever.

          What do I mean by “temperamentally unsuited”? I mean that Donald Trump is a thin-skinned, insecure, and laughable bully boy. He’s someone who is used to wielding his money and power to make others cower before him; he’s a nasty, snide, grasping, egomaniac.

          He attacks people, calls them names, engages in bizarre drama queen spectacles(as with Rosie O’Donnell), and is simply a sad little boy acting out whenever he can. He’s pathetic.

          If you think these qualities make him a great candidate for president, vote for him. I’ll be voting for a grown-up who doesn’t think he’s the precious center of the universe and that everyone who disagrees with him is a stooopid moron who should be sued into obscurity. I like my presidential candidates to be actual leaders, not bully boys dressing up as presidents.

          janitor in reply to janitor. | February 13, 2016 at 12:06 am

          I’m afraid you’re buying into the persona put out by media and opposition.

          Trump doesn’t have a mean bone in his body and in fact is a do-gooder. People who actually know him know this.

          Wow, Trump doesn’t have a mean bone in his body? Do you live on this planet? He’s a nasty piece of work whom I’ve long loathed because he’s mean-spirited and vile. But hey, whatever keeps you going.

          Fuzzy Slippers says: “I’m not some squishie loser who parrots anyone. Ever.”

          I’m afraid your posts in this thread would beg to differ.

          So who is the adult you will be voting for? Is it the one who thinks he will show the face of the god he serves to America? The one who believes he was ordained by god to be president? Is it the one who believes that god has ordained him and his fellow dominionists to take control of the whole world so that Jesus may return and rule the earth?

          In other words is it Cruz that you think is the safe adult choice?

          janitor in reply to janitor. | February 13, 2016 at 12:30 am

          Wow, Trump doesn’t have a mean bone in his body? Do you live on this planet? He’s a nasty piece of work whom I’ve long loathed because he’s mean-spirited and vile. But hey, whatever keeps you going.

          Perhaps you should ask people who know him personally.

    You lost all credibility on any subject and placed your minimalist cognitive abilities into complete question when you jumped down the throat of a poster complaining about Ragspierres vulgar posts and threatening bullying behavior to tell them more or less to shut up and what a valued contribution to LI was Ragspierres constant vulgarity and childish behavior.

    So forgive me if I don’t find your pontifications about Trump or any subject whatsoever persuasive.

    Now lets just look at one of the many problems with your diatrbes against Trump. You complain he is a blowhard who says he is the greatest and yet YOU DO EXACTLY THE SAME THING IN REVERSE BY STATING THAT HIS SUPPORTERS ARE ALL STUPID AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU ABOUT TRUMP IS STUPID. You are just saying by implication that you are the greatest and smartest one of all. That you are t g e keeper of the sole truth and knowledge.

    So perhaps you should get the LOG out of your own eye before worrying about the dust in the eyes of others.

      I would only have your support if I supported Trump, but that will–literally–never happen. Have at it, though, I’m sure your bile is swaying people who might be thinking about him. Nothing says “I’ll take another look at that candidate” like venom and bile being spewed by his supporters.

        I find it very strange that the anti-Trump people see “venom and bile” from Trump supporters but not from anyone else. You want to check that cognitive bias, maybe, and actually look at the unprovoked snotty words, foul language and name-calling in the others’ posts?

        No you would have my support if you showed the slightest bit of original thinking in your posts, instead of just Parroting the same BS posted by 20 other cruzbots. If you had bothered to recognize how your behavior about Trump was just a mirror image of the things you complain about in Trump would have also shown a level of maturity and thoughtfulness worthy of some consideration but instead you try and deflect and evade just like any of 100 other cruzbots.

          Said like someone whose Trump Chump posts are identical to those posted around the web. Uh huh. Color me surprised.

          “I’m a winner,” “I am the smartest man EVAAAH,” “I’m the one person who is perfect enough to FIX EVERYTHING!”

          Good grief. How insipid do you have to be to believe that crap?

          Look, you can support Trump all day long, but not everyone does. Indeed, he loses against Hillary in national polls, and she’s on her way to prison (if justice still exists in this land).

          Your tired little Trump mantras aren’t original, either, by the way, and are actually kind of tiresome for their unique and profound lack of critical thinking. But hey, keep it up; I honestly believe that people like you help the rest of us who don’t support Trump.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 13, 2016 at 6:00 am

      “Liberal talking points…????”

      BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA…gasp, gasp…HAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHHAHAHA

      Who’s the asphole who polluted this site with Talking Points Mau-maus excretia, butt boi?

      What a pathetic T-rump sucking liar.

Veteran and Gold Star mother Susan Price speaking at very big Trump rally in Tampa today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlH0rdW3ks8 Who here wants to call her names because she supports Trump?

    That’s silly. Some Gold Star mom supports Trump, so he’s off-limits? Uh huh. This is the same ploy the progressive left has long-employed (remember the 9/11 moms they trotted out?), and it doesn’t work on thinking conservatives. Period.

    Her support doesn’t suddenly transform Trump into a paragon of virtue, principles, or ideological purity. Trump is a dangerous dictator-wannabe, and her support–or ANYONE’s support–does not change that simple, glaringly obvious fact. Why on earth would you think that it does? Do you really imagine that after all these years, we’re susceptible to leftist tactics like this?

      Trump is a dangerous dictator-wannabe

      Now, THAT’s silly.

        Really? Trump wants amnesty (touch-back, but still amnesty), he is a yuge fan of eminent domain and made great use of it as a private citizen, he wants this, that, the other thing. He’s The Donald. Do you honestly imagine in your wildest fantasies that he will serve the people as president? That he doesn’t see the office, as his campaign manager does, as “ruling” America?

        If Trump is elected, he will be worse than Obama in terms of executive power. If you believe otherwise, you are not paying attention.

          Donald Trump wants amnesty

          No, he doesn’t.

          And yes, I’m paying attention, and have paid attention to Trump for more than three decades now. He absolutely will “serve the people”.

          Parroting long disproved Lies about Trump is the pitiful depth of your understanding of these issues. It is amazing that you have anyone that pays attention to anything you say.

          Okay, so we don’t call it “amnesty” when illegals go home and come back “as citizens”? That’s per the Trump campaign. If you don’t think that’s amnesty, I have nothing more to add.

          As to Trump serving the people, think. Please. This point is important. Does Trump strike you as someone who trusts the people or trusts only himself? He strikes me as the latter, and his campaign manager has said that Trump will “rule” and “manage” the U. S.

          Do you, a free American citizen, want to be “ruled” and “managed”? Just asking.

          Fuzzy. Trump’s position is that he will allow them to get in the back of the line and APPLY. I see nothing wrong with that. It’s kind, rather than barring them forever from doing so. But that’s a tough, lengthy process with iffy success in any event.

          Does Trump strike you as someone who trusts the people or trusts only himself? He strikes me as the latter

          Well, Fuzzy, you probably know far more than me about Cadbury eggs, shoes and television shows. But Trump doesn’t have to “strike” me as this or that because I happen to know that he seeks advice on issues, and takes it.

          janitor, Trump favors amnesty, always has and as a business man,, always will. That you are fooled by his bone-headed blather is worrying.

          http://www.newsweek.com/who-knew-trump-favors-amnesty-undocumented-immigrants-395512?piano_d=1

          He also, btw, favors universal health care, abortion-on-demand, third-trimester abortion (when the baby is actually still viable outside the womb), and his entire history shows that he not only engages in political corruption but profits from it (he’s said on the debate stage that he’s “bought” politicians”). He’s vile.

          If nothing about this worries you, vote for him. But don’t bother to try to show that I don’t know what I am talking about; I do. I’ve been writing about Donald Trump, the weak and thin-skinned dictator wannabe, since at least 2011 (when he tried running last time).

          I know his record, but I am beginning to think that you do not.

          Fuzzy you are going to have to prov I de links and documentation as to your claims about what Trump says or his campaign manager says if you want me to respond. I just don’t believe your claims because your posts are filled with lies about what Trump believes or are references to things 20 years old. So you just don’t have any credibility.

          Fuzzy:

          I’ve been writing about Donald Trump, the weak and thin-skinned dictator wannabe, since at least 2011

          Which gives you practice in writing and blogging, not knowledge.

        janitor in reply to janitor. | February 13, 2016 at 12:37 am

        janitor, Trump favors amnesty, always has and as a business man,, always will. That you are fooled by his bone-headed blather is worrying.

        (a) You’re reading a Newsweek opinion headline! and

        (b) you’re not reading carefully or critically.

        As I said, Trump compassionately supports allowing illegal immigrants, once gone from the country, to get in the back of the line and apply to come back. That’s a very tough undertaking, and a very long line, but that is what means “coming back legally”.

          janitor, Trump says in EVERY stump speech that the illegals have to go home before they can come back AS CITIZENS. Listen. He says it. It’s all there. Just freaking listen.

          Good grief, I am beginning to understand how Hitler took control of Germany.

          janitor in reply to janitor. | February 13, 2016 at 12:47 am

          No, he doesn’t. They don’t come back “as citizens”. They get to apply for legal immigration. If you know anything about that, it’s a tough thing to do.

          That is absolute lie. I have watched 5 to 10 of his full speeches. He NEVER says they can come back as citizens. You are lying or repeating someone else’s lies. He says they have to coke back legally. He also says only the good ones can come back at all.

          And whatever he does on this will be 10000 times better than Cr u z and the rest. Cryz already says he won’t deport anybody. So with Cr u z you don’t have to worry about how and when they come back because he will never round them up and make them leave.

          gulfbreeze in reply to janitor. | February 13, 2016 at 12:26 pm

          “Fuzzy Slippers | February 13, 2016 at 12:42 am

          “janitor, Trump says in EVERY stump speech that the illegals have to go home before they can come back AS CITIZENS. Listen. He says it. It’s all there. Just freaking listen.”

          Fuzzy, I have not endorsed Trump, I’m simply here to bring facts. I suggest you may be inferring words that you are not hearing directly. You can go all the way back to Trump’s CNN interview with Dana Bash on “The Lead with Jake Tapper” (aired July 29, 2015 – 16:00 ET) and find Trump’s position on his proposal to send illegal immigrants back to their home countries. While Trump proposed an “expedited” (no timeframe given) review process to enable illegal immigrants to “return legally” to the U.S., he very specifically states that the process does NOT infer that means citizenship.

          Here’s the official transcript from CNN:

          http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1507/29/cg.01.html

          “BASH: When you say legal, do you mean legal status or can they be eligible for citizenship?
          TRUMP: Legal status.
          BASH: No citizenship?
          TRUMP: No citizenship.”

          Again, please don’t take this as criticism upon you. I’m simply posting facts. If you have evidence of your claim that Trump or his campaign has changed their position OR specifically used the words “citizen” or “citizenship” denoting the status of returning immigrants under his plan (especially if it’s been said as many times as you suggest), I would please like to see it.

          Thanks

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | February 13, 2016 at 1:26 pm

          What’s funny about real immigration hawks is that WE NEVER allow the idea of bringing back…or letting stay…once-illegals under any circumstance SHORT OF THE CURRENT LAW.

          T-rump EXPRESSLY plans to short-circuit the law (“he” will bring back the “good ones” under a legal status of some kind). NO Sessions plan would sanction that. Regardless of how Gaghdad Bob Britt lies.

          Why? What’s the purpose of “rounding them up” (a legal AND political impossibility), sending them home, and letting them back under a “legal status”? It’s irrational.

          What’s more, if proposed by ANY Deemocrat, it would be immediately…and PROPERLY…attacked as a stealth move to eventually grease the skids to full voting citizenship.

          ONE of the many reasons REAL immigration hawks give for this whole revolution is to adjust the workforce in the U.S. AWAY from migrants TOWARD Americans UNTIL the appalling unemployment/underemployment is successfully addressed.

          ANOTHER is to assure that the people we allow here are both assimilatable and assimilated.

          Those are Sessions-style immigration issues, and the T-rump touch-back plan…about which Britt’s been lying and denying for months…doesn’t address them.

          But, as with most things T-rump, there is no “plan”. There’s a demagoging point and there MAY be a “paper” that someone else wrote, and is itself riddled with crap. But Der Donald can’t speak to it intelligently, and he’s already signaled those are for the “press”. His followers never demand either a core or a plan…certainly not one making any sense. The man and the notion are enough. Despite the fact that the man has a history that contradicts everything he’s projecting now.

          Ragspierre continues his lies on behalf of Cruz above.

          Jeff Sessions helped write and absolutely approves and endorses Trump’s immigration plan. Sessions appeared with Trump in front of 30,000 people in Alabama on the day Trump published his immigration plan. During that appearance Sessions put on a Trump Make America Great Again hat.

          Cruz doesn’t have to bring anybody back because he has already promised he will not round up and deport anybody. So nobody has to come back because Cruz just lets everyone stay.

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | February 13, 2016 at 6:03 pm

          Yah, that’s all bullshit.

          Typical lies, told in the face of everyone here.

          You can read Cruz’s plan to use existing LEOs and laws to deport illegals. No plan to have “him” bring back the “good ones” like Der Donald. And no impossible lies about “rounding them up”. (This, of course, appeals to the Bierhall Bigot Britt, who LOVES that Collectivist BIG GOVERNMENT).

          Gaghdad Bob can refute what I said, so he appeals to a authority of a hat. Talk about your fallacies…!!!

Fuzzy Slippers.
He also, btw, favors universal health care …
So you oppose universal health care?

Fuzzy:

he’s said on the debate stage that he’s “bought” politicians”

I don’t recall him saying “bought” but be that as it may, it sounds quite honest, refreshing, and forthcoming. And completely jibes with Trump’s statements that he’s become fed up with this corrupt system that he felt he had to do this way to be successful in his business ventures, and that’s why he’s running.

Or would you prefer to support one of the business as usual career politicans who instead TAKE bribes.

    Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | February 13, 2016 at 1:40 pm

    You’ll attempt any disgusting act of apology to justify this corrupt crony Mr. Establishment in his crapatude.

    Amazing.

    He’s SHOWN you a PERFECT example of “politics as usual” and SELLING OUT in Iowa with BIG CORN. And you’re still too stupid and enthralled to even accept it.

    He’s TOLD you he and Bernie Sanders share common values regarding trade and property rights and markets. And you’re still too stupid and enthralled to even let his words penetrate.

    You are just a Obama voter, and with less excuse.

What a whiny petty pissy baby fit, but its Trump, the spoiled little entitled rich boy he has been since birth.

They may allow Fidelito Cruz in the GOP primary but if ever this Canadian-born guy becomes the nominee, I’m sure Hillary camp with the help of 0bama will sue to disqualify Fidelito Cruz being not a natural born American.

I’ll sue to disqualify

Oh, how Obamaesque.

    Neo in reply to Neo. | February 13, 2016 at 3:18 am

    In his first race for office, seeking a state Senate seat on Chicago’s gritty South Side in 1996, Obama effectively used election rules to eliminate his Democratic competition.

    As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.

    The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district.

    “That was Chicago politics,” said John Kass, a veteran Chicago Tribune columnist. “Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right? It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race, he made sure voters had just one choice.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html

Trump’s tweet stated that “I have standing to sue him”. That is not a threat to sue him. Once again Trump plays the media and gets lots of free publicity and lots of discussion of Cruz’s eligibility to run for President.

There is a false construct all around that this is a purely legal question subject to some absolutely right or wrong conclusion. We should all just admit that we don’t really know for sure what “natural born Citizen” means or meant between the points of inclusion and exclusion….. I believe the proper constitutional outcome is to leave the issue to the political process. Prof. Jacobson.
Isn’t that happening now? If legal scholars are divided on this issue, where does that leave the rest of us?

Cruz was born in 1970 and at that time Canada did not allow dual citizenship…

    Mercyneal in reply to Vince. | February 13, 2016 at 11:24 am

    But the US started allowing dual citizenship in 1967

      Okay.. so the guy is born in Canada and is a citizen of that country. Is he automatically an american because of his mother?

        spartan in reply to Vince. | February 13, 2016 at 3:40 pm

        The only way to say this:

        the guy is born in Canada and is automatically an American because of his mother.

        True then … true now

    Arminius in reply to Vince. | February 13, 2016 at 9:12 pm

    So all that means is Canada was wrong to ever consider Ted Cruz a citizen of their country.

    By US law he is a natural born citizen. When it comes to who has US citizenship because they were born US citizens, US law controls. Not Canadian law or any other country’s law.

its called campaigning … same as you calling Trump a clown or his supporters stupid … its an emotional response … the same as the Cruz puppet ads which are simply personal attacks … i.e. lashing out …

    Arminius in reply to dorsaighost. | February 13, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    No, what Trump is doing is called lying. And I’ve been able to prove that on other threads by using Trump’s own words against him.

    Such as,his words in court when he’s under oath, and is forced to tell the truth. And because he has to tell the truth in court, he is forced to admit he lied to investors.

    http://aminewswire.com/stories/510660800-iowan-victimized-by-trump-university-s-false-ad

    “…Piatt said he would have never attended the Trump event in Iowa, and would never have spent as much as he did, if not for the sales pitch touting Trump’s hands-on role in the program bearing his name.

    Among the key pieces of evidence in the class actions is an infomercial by Trump in which he presents the university as his own. In the infomercial, the billionaire claims he personally hired “professors and adjunct professors that are absolutely terrific.”

    “And honestly, if you don’t learn from them, if you don’t learn from me, if you don’t learn from the people that we’re going to be putting forward, and these are all people handpicked by me,” Trump says, “then you’re just not going to make it in terms of world-class success.”

    Under oath, Trump told a different story. He testified in a 2012 deposition that, contrary to the Trump University sales materials and statements he made in the infomercial to the media, he neither selected the instructors nor oversaw the curriculum.

    Asked to name a single course taught by Trump University, he could not.

    …Trump sat for a sworn deposition to answer questions from Lisa Jensen, one of the lawyers representing class members, on Sept. 12, 2012.

    Trump deflected virtually all questions to Trump University president Sexton:

    …Trump University promoted what it called “The Foreclosure System” in its brochures and other documents. This was, students were told, a system designed and used by Trump to help him buy distressed properties at rock-bottom prices.

    When Jensen asked Trump to explain the foreclosure system, Trump and his attorney responded with mystification.

    “What does that mean?” Trump’s lawyer asked.

    Trump asked his own attorney: “Do you know what that means?”

    Eventually Trump realized that plaintiffs’ attorney Jensen was asking about a specific “foreclosure system” taught by Trump University.

    Trump said you would “have to ask Michael Sexton as to how it was taught.”

    …Garten cited the collapse of the real estate market after the 2008 economic meltdown. In other words, the failure by students to make big money in real estate was the fault of market conditions, not a reflection on the strategies taught by Trump University.

    But in its promotional and teaching materials, Trump University trumpeted the meltdown as a primary reason for students to enroll in the program and get to making the easy money. “Cash in on the Greatest Property Liquidation in History!” screamed one Trump University promo featuring a photo of the smiling billionaire.

    Piatt, the Iowa retiree, said many of the techniques taught by Trump University were ethically dubious and, now, even illegal under Iowa law. ”

    Trump has sung this song before. It’s one of the ways he makes his money.

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/29/politics/trump-university-fraud-claims/index.html

    “Washington (CNN)Donald Trump has told American voters there will be so much winning when he is president, people will “get bored with winning.”

    This type of positive messaging has attracted voters across the country, vaulting Donald Trump to the top of presidential primary polls.

    More than a decade ago, Donald Trump launched another nationwide campaign with that same winning promise, but the results have been mixed and controversial.

    He called it Trump University.

    From 2005 until it closed in 2010, about 10,000 students across the nation signed up for the program that promised success in real estate by offering courses and seminars based on the principles of the business mogul himself.

    “At Trump University, we teach success,” Trump said in a 2005 infomercial when the program was launched. “That’s what it’s all about. Success. It’s going to happen to you.””

    He’s going to make America great. We’re going to all be winners with Trump. Yeah, scammed a lot of people before that they were going to be winners with Trump. All they were was fleeced. On some of his con jobs they were fleeced out of their entire life savings.

    But, but, you say. We can trust him this time. This time he means. In case you don’t know that’s how con men work. The con in con man is short for confidence, because if they don’t convince you to trust them then their scams can’t work.

    So you go ahead and convince yourself that this time you can trust him. He lied to all those other people, but he’d never lie to you.

    And I have a bridge to sell you.

    “”

“BONUS QUESTION: Will The Donald also sue to keep Marco Rubio off the ballot if Marco gains momentum again and runs attack ads? After all, many of the people who claim Cruz is ineligible also claim Rubio is ineligible because his parents were not citizens at the time of his birth in the United States. (Yes, I address that claim also in my prior post.)

I think Trump should sue. I’m not just saying that. I don’t know that Trump has standing, but he’s probably closer to it than most people out there. So go ahead, Donald, file the lawsuit, don’t just threaten it. And do it against Rubio too. I’m sick of hearing the threat. Just do it.”

Professor, Trump won’t sue because as Fuzzyslippers said upthread Trump knows perfectly well Cruz meets all the constitutional requirements to be President, because Donald Trump himself has said so.

He said so last year, when he admitted all the legal people he talked to told him Cruz’s citizenship status is not a problem. Of course a few months later Trump is playing it up as a problem.

Amusingly he also said Cruz should “resolve” that issue before running for President. But Trump knows there is no existing mechanism for Cruz to do so. What he’s counting on is his fanboys don’t know that and will buy that insanity. Because it’s such a stupid distraction nobody has bothered to come up with one. Seriously, do you Trumpsters think Cruz is supposed to sue himself and challenge his own natural born citizenship status? And let’s face it; it would prove nothing if Cruz merely got one Federal District Court judge to rule Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. No you Trumpsters are too <sarc smart </sarc to fall for that. No Ted Cruz would have to appeal the suit of Ted Cruz v Ted Cruz all the way to the Supreme Court if the lower courts keep ruling for defendant Ted Cruz, that he's a natural born citizen, and against plaintiff Ted Cruz who insists he's not.

But there's no point in even trying because, first of all, every judge in the land would laugh it out of court as the stupidest lawsuit ever. And second of all, like 9/11 truthers no amount of evidence will ever be enough for a Trumpster.

And then just 10 days ago Trump was on Hugh Hewitt's show, saying he wouldn't rule out Cruz as his VP. Trump is smart enough to know if his Trumpster fan base isn't that a VP has to meet the same constitutional requirements as President. You can't have a 20-something naturalized-citizen Swedish bikini team member as a VP, not that Trump wouldn't prefer that given past performance is a pretty good indicator of what you can expect in the future.

Which is why Trump won't sue Cruz. Not for "illegally" stealing the Iowa caucuses, as he tweeted after he lost there, and not because he actually believes Cruz isn't a natural born citizen, as he is tweeting in the above post.

Trump isn't a clown. He's a self-promoter and a con man. The last thing he's going to do is prove his con is just that and have his BS thrown out of court. The threat that he's going to sue is so much more valuable to him than what he knows if a baseless lawsuit. The threats allow him to plant these ideas into his marks heads so he can keep playing them for sucker.

It's amazing Trump has people fooled into thinking he's some sort of patriotic American. Trump proves my points in his own tweets. Is Trump threatening to sue Cruz over his citizenship status because he loves his country and wants to uphold the Constitution? No, he's threatening to sue because Cruz is being "mean" to the one thing Donald Trump really believes in; the one thing he really loves.

Donald Trump.

No better way to identify pseudoconservatives than by watching them chimp out at the prospect of the Constitution being invoked and interpreted.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend