Sen. Ted Cruz to announce a presidential bid on Monday
76 replies, posted
Here's the transcript for his speech: [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-ted-cruzs-speech-at-liberty-university/2015/03/23/41c4011a-d168-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47381466]Turns out those "students" (in the same way Liberty is a "university") were required to be there, and a whole lot of them weren't buying Cruz's shit:
[URL]http://gawker.com/ted-cruzs-audience-thought-his-announcement-speech-was-1693131221[/URL]
[IMG]http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--MnQ0wXTV--/iwlwrwjnabnk1padrbjx.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
That's really ironic.
How is this guy allowed to run for presidency if he was born in Canada, and neither of his parents were born here either?
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;47382364]How is this guy allowed to run for presidency if he was born in Canada, and neither of his parents were born here either?[/QUOTE]
His mother was born in Delaware. A natural born citizen is a citizen that's an American at birth. It doesn't matter what country you're in at the time. If you're eligible for a Certificate of Birth Abroad, you're an American and you can be President.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Birth_abroad_to_one_United_States_citizen[/url]
I'm in the same boat, being born an American in Canada, too. Dual citizenship, baby.
[QUOTE=OvB;47382483]His mother was born in Delaware. A natural born citizen is a citizen that's an American at birth. It doesn't matter what country you're in at the time. If you're eligible for a Certificate of Birth Abroad, you're an American and you can be President.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Birth_abroad_to_one_United_States_citizen[/url]
I'm in the same boat, being born an American in Canada, too. Dual citizenship, baby.[/QUOTE]
IIRC, he formally renounced any Canadian citizenship a year or two ago.
[QUOTE=OvB;47382483]His mother was born in Delaware. A natural born citizen is a citizen that's an American at birth. It doesn't matter what country you're in at the time. If you're eligible for a Certificate of Birth Abroad, you're an American and you can be President.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_nationality_law#Birth_abroad_to_one_United_States_citizen[/url]
I'm in the same boat, being born an American in Canada, too. Dual citizenship, baby.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I misread wikipedia and thought it said his mother was born in canada as well.
Give me boxes.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47382503]IIRC, he formally renounced any Canadian citizenship a year or two ago.[/QUOTE]
Yep, which was silly because he totally didn't need to. Both countries don't care. The United States government considered me an American citizen, and the Canadian government considers me a Canadian citizen. I should drop all my plans and go into politics and see if I can be the first[citation needed] person to be the chief executive of two countries.
[editline]23rd March 2015[/editline]
Though I guess if you're trying to pander to red blooded American conservatives, denouncing you're a foreigner might be beneficial.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;47380747]Vaccinating the public, including kids, is a public health and safety issue. It takes a very narrow view to see it as a personal freedom thing.
For example, I have free speech, but it's limited by not being allowed to slander or libel someone. If we can prevent the spread of disease by mandating vaccinations, how is that different? Parents' freedom to choose is overridden by the public interest.[/QUOTE]
moreso when its an epidemic, viruses don't care about liberty
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47381813]Rand Paul is a wolf in sheepskin among Libertarians. He claims he's one but his beliefs are very much more like the regular GOP conservatives.
Being for permanent foreign military bases and being against legalizing marijuana are just straight up against libertarian ideology.[/QUOTE]
As I said, I'm not gonna push an entire party philosophy onto Paul. I don't identify as a libertarian nor do I identify with any party, if you're assuming something along those lines. It really does not matter to me what political "group" they fall under as long as their policies are good.
[editline]23rd March 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;47382591]moreso when its an epidemic, viruses don't care about liberty[/QUOTE]
Addressing both of you.
I am 100% for abortion 100% of the time. With that said, I understand that a good portion of the United States is not. I think Paul provides a safe and effective middle-ground by pushing the envelope on Plan B and birth control. I guess you could say "proactive not reactive" in a sense. The entire goal the whole time is to terminate or prevent a pregnancy, but one is acting before it gets controversial. As I said, my stance is abortion should be legal in all cases, but sometimes you have to compromise to get things done. If there is a step in the right direction, it's probably the only one we as a whole nation can take.
Yes but couldn't it be argued that human lives are on the line regardless? As much as science says a life isn't a real life at conception, there is a pretty good group of people out there who would argue against that. Obviously there are some differences, as we all would agree a child is in fact living, while we may not all agree in the idea of life at conception. What's the difference between arguing for someone to be forced to something with their body to "protect others" on vaccines than it is arguing it on abortion.
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;47382713]As I said, I'm not gonna push an entire party philosophy onto Paul. I don't identify as a libertarian nor do I identify with any party, if you're assuming something along those lines. It really does not matter to me what political "group" they fall under as long as their policies are good.
[editline]23rd March 2015[/editline]
Addressing both of you.
I am 100% for abortion 100% of the time. With that said, I understand that a good portion of the United States is not. I think Paul provides a safe and effective middle-ground by pushing the envelope on Plan B and birth control. I guess you could say "proactive not reactive" in a sense. The entire goal the whole time is to terminate or prevent a pregnancy, but one is acting before it gets controversial. As I said, my stance is abortion should be legal in all cases, but sometimes you have to compromise to get things done. If there is a step in the right direction, it's probably the only one we as a whole nation can take.
Yes but couldn't it be argued that human lives are on the line regardless? As much as science says a life isn't a real life at conception, there is a pretty good group of people out there who would argue against that. Obviously there are some differences, as we all would agree a child is in fact living, while we may not all agree in the idea of life at conception. What's the difference between arguing for someone to be forced to something with their body to "protect others" on vaccines than it is arguing it on abortion.[/QUOTE]
But abortions aren't something that everyone has to think about, it's what the potential mother has to think about. It literally doesn't affect anybody but the people directly involved in the baby. Arguing that is like arguing gays. Some time ago most of the country didn't like gays, it's minding other people's business, which is, obviously, not our own business. It doesn't matter if an abortion becomes contriversial. Of course life begins at conception, but the only reason it's illegal to abort after a certain time is because [B]conciousness[/B] begins a long time after conception.
[QUOTE=andololol;47383581]But abortions aren't something that everyone has to think about, it's what the potential mother has to think about. It literally doesn't affect anybody but the people directly involved in the baby. Arguing that is like arguing gays. Some time ago most of the country didn't like gays, it's minding other people's business, which is, obviously, not our own business. It doesn't matter if an abortion becomes contriversial. Of course life begins at conception, but the only reason it's illegal to abort after a certain time is because [B]conciousness[/B] begins a long time after conception.[/QUOTE]
But abortions are nonetheless "harming" someone. Gays are much different from trying to protect yourself from a mandatory action (Vaccines in this case). It's still a matter of "I do what I want with my body". The argument for vaccines is "the greater good". So why is the "greater good" not playing a role in outlawing abortions? Both are "damaging" to a supposed human being. The gay argument doesn't work here. I'm pointing out the similarities between abortion and vaccines; and why the "greater good" argument is flawed.
I'm not disagreeing. I don't believe life begins at conception. I'm saying that a very good majority of people do and that the view should be recognized and in some way dealt with. It's not feasible to keep half the nation pissed off because we don't have a better solution than abortion. Advocation of things like birth control help to keep both sides of the crowd happy.
[QUOTE=OvB;47379590]He's a staunch Libertarian.[/QUOTE]
No, [I]Ron[/I] Paul is a staunch libertarian. Rand Paul isn't as ideologically consistent as he's known for being. He's morphed into a generic Republican over the years, only even more to the right.
[editline]24th March 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;47379959]I'm personally on the fence for this one. The argument would be "Who decides what vaccines are given?"
It's a very difficult thing to determine what vaccines are necessary and what vaccines are not. Many people would find fault in the government enforcing that they put something into their own bodies, or their kids' bodies.[/QUOTE]
It would be a personal decisions... if it wasn't for the fact that people can spread advanced forms of viruses to other people. Also, children don't decide their parents' religion. If it was a part of a religion to cattle prod your child, would that be protected, or is should that be illegal no matter what the reason is?
Also, a true libertarian who believes it's the individual's choice should also be against criminalizing drugs. I'm not saying you have any particular stance on either of the Pauls, I just wanted to throw that out there.
[QUOTE=Lord_Ragnarok;47384348]No, [I]Ron[/I] Paul is a staunch libertarian. Rand Paul isn't as ideologically consistent as he's known for being. He's morphed into a generic Republican over the years, only even more to the right.
[editline]24th March 2015[/editline]
It would be a personal decisions... if it wasn't for the fact that people can spread advanced forms of viruses to other people. Also, children don't decide their parents' religion. If it was a part of a religion to cattle prod your child, would that be protected, or is should that be illegal no matter what the reason is?
Also, a true libertarian who believes it's the individual's choice should also be against criminalizing drugs. I'm not saying you have any particular stance on either of the Pauls, I just wanted to throw that out there.[/QUOTE]
I don't see your point? That it harms the child? Same argument can be made for abortions, and that's what I'm trying to point out.
Lot of talk on the ideology of a libertarian. As I said, both of the Paul's fall into their own political "group". Overlaying the term libertarian on either of them seems discrediting to their individual policies.
tedcruz.com is pretty good
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;47384430]I don't see your point? That it harms the child? Same argument can be made for abortions, and that's what I'm trying to point out.
Lot of talk on the ideology of a libertarian. As I said, both of the Paul's fall into their own political "group". Overlaying the term libertarian on either of them seems discrediting to their individual policies.[/QUOTE]
Abortions don't have an effect on a 3rd party. Not getting a vaccine does. If an antivaxer's kid gets a virus and goes to school, there's a possibility that the virus can spread to children who [I]can't[/I] be vaccinated because of health reasons, and those children can even [I]die[/I] from the ignorance of others. It's ignorance putting others at risk. Your abortion analogy does not work because having an abortion will never abort another child that's not yours.
Not getting a vaccine is irresponsible, reckless child endangerment for both your child and others.
Prepare for me bitches
Because when that stupid prohibition on humanity from the US to discriminate and only allow US citizens from birth to be President...I am going to run for Office.
I got it all planned now. I am going to launch the US into the XXII century in 2052
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/vbuwqLY.png[/IMG]
the man america needs
[QUOTE=MisterMooth;47392529]the man america needs[/QUOTE]
The CANADIAN America needs.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.