CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 29, 2011 02:23 AM UTC
33 Comments
We call the big clumps “mice”. We wish there was a market for them becaus the way our short haired, supposedly not very sheddy cats shed, we could be millionaires if there was. You don’t suppose we could interest the Donald?
Perhaps the media will begin to do their job now that the novelty is worn off.
Trump ‘business acumen’=inherited wealth and multiple bankruptcies
Trump ‘buy American’=unless its his branded products
Trump
transparency’=see diary
In addition–he didn’t understand why someone would follow up an abortion question with one about ‘a right to privacy in the Constitution.’ And he didn’t know how many members there are in the US House of Representatives. The guy is a egomaniacal blowhard self-pimping embarrassment.
Maybe he’ll run as an ‘independent’?
No more records should be forthcoming. The birther stuff at least had the (very thin) excuse that it was about his eligibility to be President. A very thin excuse since being born to his American mother does makes him a natural born citizen, eligible to run for President even if he was born outside the US, just like the children of military, diplomats, Americans working or just visiting overseas, etc. This came up briefly with McCain but was quickly resolved and forgotten for the non-issue it was.
It also provided a thin excuse that it wasn’t about racism. It was about the constitution and his foreign otherness and really being Muslim (we don’t hate him because he’s black. We hate him because he’s a Muslim terrorist), as if that’s relevant to being President either.
This other stuff has nothing to do with anything but racism as in the black guy couldn’t possibly be smart enough to be President and all those fancy credentials were handed to him by unfair-to-white-folks affirmative action. He couldn’t have been smart enough to really graduate magna cum laude or to write his own books. I don’t see Obama releasing any more documents over this garbage.
Trump could have been remembered fondly as a colorful, almost endearingly vulgar, flim flam/business man and celebrity. Now he’ll be remembered primarily as the race baiting pig who stunk up the joint in the 2011 run up to the 2012 election.
The “natural born citizen” was extended to include McCain because he was born to US citizens while his father was serving in the Panama Canal Zone that was, at the time, a US possession. The Senate passed a resolution that McCain was eligible as a “natural born citizen” based on that fact.
What you have described is how people born abroad to US citizens are US citizens. Whether or not anyone who is a US citizen, and not by naturalization, is also a “natural born citizen” is one of those categories to be determined.
The “birthers” are now arguing that because the Senate resolution also referred to the fact that both of McCain’s parents were US citizens. Therefore, only citizens born to US citizens are “natural born.”
You are logical, but that does beg the question. I am sure that given legal tests that what you assert will be found to be legal; but, it is not happened yet.
you are not natural born just because a parent, or both parents are citizens. Depends on what their duties abroad were. My thought is that if those duties abroad were directly related to govt sevice then you ought be considered natural born with 1 citizen parent.
Anyone born within the boundaries is natural born unless to citizens of another country who are here on THEIR govts business
I think it interesting that I believe the first natural born citizen to be president was Martin Van Buren
either here or at an embassy, military base, etc. to be born a citizen. Here’s what I found under birthright citizenship. Almost any child born to a US citizen abroad can easily meet the requirements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B…
for more specific details, including changes relevant to status for those born between various dates:
http://shusterman.com/uscitize…
Once again, the whole Obama citizenship question based on nothing regardless.
1) The qualifications for US citizenship, generally. And…
2) The constitution goes a step further in defining the qualification for President. It states that a candidate has to be a “natural born” citizen. This is taken to mean that a person was born in America. This is the only place in the constitution where the term “natural born” is stated.
as opposed to those who have to become naturalized citizens having not been born US citizens. It’s pretty clear. If you are a citizen from the moment of birth you’re a natural born citizen. Case closed. And of course this is all hypothetical since the perfectly good short form certificate of live birth that Obama published in 2008 is absolutely required to be accepted as proof of citizenship. There never was any there anywhere. Now can we just drop this crap?
No, what is clear and what the Supreme Court found was that if you are born in the United STates, you are automatically a natural born citizen of the UNited States. The Supreme Court has been silent on defining what other situations constitute “natural born” as opposed to defining what is a citizen of the United States.
ARe you a lawyer? Or, are you one of those women who just assert something over and over and over again and soon or later, people just walk away exhausted. I am sorry BC, I just do not accept you as an constitutional authority. Please do not take it personally.
We are in agreement on the short form birth certificate….the problem is that the birthers waged a very successful PROPAGANDA campaign to confuse the issue…and created a segment of the population who believed that the short form certificate was not sufficient to prove citizenship. I stand with those who think that the constitutional definition should have been asserted by non-birthers, long ago.
They provide highly detailed, complete info. Did you bother? Is it a reading comprehension problem? Here’s one more:
http://library.thinkquest.org/…
That’s it. I’ve provided three links on the subject. You can also research it yourself. That’s my absolutely, positively last response on this subject as it’s pretty much like presenting facts to a birther; a waste of time.
It is a library website: “For students, by students”. The site does state than anyone born to US citizens anywhere is considered natural born and eligible to be president. They do not cite a source.
Your previous links confused “birthright” with “natural born.”
I will go to the white house web page and Thomas.gov and ask that question.
I find it interesting that while you chose to insult me for not citing sources at all when I absolutely did, whether you find them adequate or not, you have not bothered to provide any links to sources, adequate or otherwise. So maybe the woman who just thinks that stating something over and over makes it right is the one you might see when looking in in the mirror, dear.
I want to quote from the 2008 Senate resolution on McCain.
Until then, here is a quote from an AP article, dated April15, 2011, and a link to the article, itself.
http://www.google.com/hostedne…
“The U.S. Constitution requires that presidential candidates be natural-born U.S. citizens, at least 35 years old and be a resident of the United States for at least 14 years.
However, the Founding Fathers didn’t elaborate on “natural-born citizen,” so the term has been left open to interpretation.
The U.S. Supreme Court also has never defined the phrase, said Gabriel J. Chin, a University of Arizona law professor who is an expert in citizenship and immigration law.”
My presumption, that you have corrected, was that everyone knew that the above statement summarized the current thinking on “natural born citizen.” The issue is too important to be a subject of this bickering. I will cite the Senate resolution when the website is back up. I am not sure what the final resolution said.
You will find that it hasn’t been ruled on by the Supremes and never will be until somebody takes it that far which won’t happen until somebody born abroad of an American citizen parent or parents seeking the presidency actually occurs.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t a strongly prevailing opinion on what the result would be if it did. That’s a far cry from your assertion, which you didn’t bother to support with a damn thing, that it absolutely means you have to be born on US soil, McCain’s being born on US soil in the form of a military base being the only reason this wasn’t a problem for him and that I didn’t offer any sources for my point of view.
Regardless of what you find when the website is back up, most of which you would no doubt find at the most detailed source I provided (the second link I provided, I believe) at the outset which actually includes the info about 14 years and many more specific details, you still ought to take a look in that mirror before you start accusing other people of being the type who just repeat things loudly without providing any sources.
As far as bickering, I’m with you there. The quality of both your argument and style of arguing has been established to my satsfaction. Nothing more to argue about.
Rather it is a distinction from a naturalized citizen. A natural Born citizen is anyone who obtains American citizenship upon birth–regardless of their physical location. Or at least that’s my non-attorney understanding. So, I think that means I agree with you.
and you are born in an ordinary French hospital on ordinary French soil, you have every right to be considered an ordinary natural born American, with a few i dots and t crossings, as eligible as any other to grow up to be president. The reason it wasn’t a problem for McCain is because it wasn’t a problem, not because of magical US soil, regardless of what somebody thought and the press breathlessly reported.
There is also clearly no requirement that a person must have two citizen parents to be considered a natural born US citizen. Likewise, there is no superior legal weight given to a long form copy of a birth document, whether it’s called a certificate of birth, a certificate of live birth or a certification of birth, over a shorter form with any of the same titles.
These are all on-issues. Serious news operations are under no obligation to take into consideration whatever garbage any given group of wackos chooses to make up out of thin air. In fact they should be under an obligation to give these easily debunked falsehoods all the credibility they deserve. None. Not an iota. Not a second of face time on any legitimate news network to present entirely meritless cases. No more than if someone claimed Obama is a vampire. These claims were never any more worthy of serious coverage than that would be.
Bottom line; 1) the MSM should have pointed out from the beginning that there was never any point in proving or disproving Obama’s alleged foreign birth because it wouldn’t be relevant anyway. 2) his mother being a US citizen ends any need for further discussion or investigation 3) ditto whether or not he was raised a Muslim.
The shame of it all is that the only reason that even someone like you is saying what you’re saying and laboring under the misconception that there ever was any “there” there, even in the birthers wildest dreams, is because of the conscious choice of our MSM to abdicate their responsibilities as serious journalists in favor of joining the entertainment freak show. But go ahead. Believe what you want. Worry about whatever you want to worry about. You’ll get no more arguments from me. What’s the point?
Have we gotten any ruling yet on caesarean versus lamaze?
Would an epidural disqualify one’s child from being considered “natural born”? (I know the nurse that taught our lamaze class back in the day would have excluded this category.)
These are the important questions that GO(T)P will have to start asking now that Obama has put Trump’s birth certificate question to rest.
Don’t focus all your ire on Trump. The GOP power brokers have been all too happy to tacitly allow Trump to continue spouting this nonsense while they’ve been sitting on the sidelines refusing to strongly condemn him. Trump’s been doing their dirty work, de-legitimizing the first African-American President while they sit by hoping to reap the spoils.
That’s the thing- by putting Trump out front, you get to run against him.
Later, we can run against whomever and Rush.
The one guy I’d rather not run against is Reagan. Fortunately, Reagan would never be nominated in today’s GO(T)P.
But any practical, well liked, willing to raise taxes to get serious about deficit reduction, isolationist, socially libertarian R candidate would be trouble. But there aren’t any.
Santorum. Paul.
Maybe Tancredo can run again. Or Bob Barr.
Bachman.
Things have changed enough that I don’t think even a 2008 style McCain could make it through today.
No way, Senator (what’sthatsmall-heyoukidsgetoffthedamn lawn) McCain? He’s toast.
Could a 1986 style Reagan? No.
1992 Bush? No.
2000 Bush – yes.
2012
Just meant that the GOP world has changed so much in the post-2008 years, nobody not perceived as a good deal to the right of the up-dated, more rightie, 2008 version of McCain could make it through now. The moved-to-the-right McCain of 2008 is pretty much in RINO territory according to to today’s GOP standards. Ditto Bush and Reagan. Ike would be a far lefty America hating radical.
feisty today.
I want to run against someone. I cannot believe we’re going to have to wait 11 or 12 months to findout who the GO(T)P loser is going to be.
That’s why we love you.
on;y because the world is so ….slow.
Donald Trump? He is an ignorant loudmouth.
End of story.
That means we get to run against him until Rush eats him alive.
Ann Coulter doesn’t matter. Local radio talkers don’t matter. But Trump is the front runner.
This is my take on the Trump phenomena.There are a group of “losers” in the current economy – not necessarily through their own fault, but by the dynamics that no one really can control. Those losers are by and large white men. (SEE a recent Newsweek cover and article).
Every day, all day, talk radio hosts tell these men it is not their fault and it is the fault of , fill in the blanks, affirmative action, uppity women, blacks, illegals, etc. Now, all of those factors have come together in one man – Obama. Obama is black, exotic, bright, well educated, has a fine family, and is most of all, successful. He is everything so many of these men are not. They can not now or ever will be able to identify with him. His success is at the expense of their own egos.
Now, Trump appeals to these men because he is everything that Obama is not. They can identify. Plus, he is challenging Obama and “kicking his ass.” When dealing with psychological factors, facts do not matter. I expect that Trump will continue to soar in the polls…where he will finally go, I don’t know. He is Jesse Ventura, maybe Scharteneger (sp?_….Trump is their surrogate.
I complain all the time because the PResident and the dems are so passive in the face of the republican onslaught. There is nothing that can be done to counter this, I have concluded.
won’t because we have real stuff to worry about.
We are in absolutely agreement on the above. The only reason I mention this is because it is the new argument from the birthers. The only reason that is important because as you state, the msm, is simply failing to do their job and putting constitutional lawyers front and center to refute this assertion. What happens then is that public opinion begins to form around these mis-statements and the public becomes confused…which is why the PResident had to show his long-form.
Your assertion here has not been tested legally. As I mentioned before, I am an army brat…although born in this country. My mother and others believed that if they gave birth to a son (note the gender) overseas that that child could not be president because he was not born on American soil. I think a legal challenge would result in the constitutional determination that you asserted. However, that has not happened as yet.
Virtually all politicians are liars and national embarrassments!