The 2016 United States Presidential Election

Thanks, I think I get it. For the record, I'm confident based on his words and actions that he will betray those promises.

I think my conclusion has to be that the law was extremely badly written. If the idea was to protect the nation from foreign inluence, which I read earlier at some site or other, maybe even Wikipedia, then even if Cruz is also illegal I nevertheless have no doubt that he has a heart for America, as did his father, and that's why I wouldn't want to exclude him. Obama, absolutely no, it's not just his foreign birth but his foreign identification, and really his hatred of America, and his Marxist background, that make him unfit for the office. And the law is completely inadequate for that purpose.By the way I was reading in Alan Keyes' website earlier and he slammed Obama for these same reasons, and wanted to impeach him. He also didn't support Trump, but I couldn't find anything he wrote since the election. I could have voted for Keyes, racist that I am.

Check out the WND where he has been writing a fair bit recently.Alan Keyes, Author at WND

quote:

---

I’ve known Jeff {Epstein} for 15 years. Terrific guy...He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.

​

--Donald Trump

---

quote:

---

Trump’s reference to Epstein’s taste for women on the younger side gives pause.

​

Epstein is a once-convicted pedophile who has reportedly paid settlements to quiet allegations of sexual assault in more than a few cases. Are Trump’s words evidence that he had personal knowledge of Epstein’s predilection?
...
What if the allegations against Mr. Trump are true, and someone holds solid evidence that they are true? That fact would give such a person the power to mire Mr. Trump’s presidency in a sensational scandal, a scandal that could force his resignation from office. Given that prospect, would not the person or persons who controlled such evidence be able to coerce President Trump’s decisions?
....
In like fashion, the possibility that Mr. Trump is disposed to abuse power must greatly concern Americans, as well as allies and friends of America, who value this nation’s critical contribution to the defense and promotion of just and decent liberty.
....
The travesty is that, instead of informing voters with properly vetted facts and testimony, an effort is being made to stampede them into casting their ballots out of fear, anger and revulsion, rather than conscientious deliberation. This not only contravenes what is just and right for individuals, it ill serves our common good as a nation.
....
Worst of all, we are being misled into believing that we have no choice but to accept this unjust constraint upon our sovereign judgment. We are being told we have no choice but to put one or the other of these possibly criminal malefactors into the White House. This is a self-evident lie. Constitutionally speaking, the votes we cast on Nov. 8 do not count toward the election of the president. They count toward the election of the electors in whom the Constitution vests the actual power to select the president (and vice president) of the United States.
....
Given the questionable characters, uncertain information and heedless partisanship with which we are contending in this election year, isn’t this duty of electoral independence the remedy exactly suited for such a time as this?

​

The electors' duty —- for such a time as this

---

At which point they will go broke because nobody that can afford to buy will want to eat there. Which will then compete with the Christian madassa system for students. Completing the devolution of the US to a 3rd world country sending resources to developed countries.Great news.

In short, it is not about the law at all. It is about some foreign influence thing you believe you read somewhere. Further the "foreign" thing includes Kenya but excludes Canada in your mind. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What I said was that I may have to change my mind about the meaning of the requirement, meaning that Cruz looks to be disqualified too; but that if its point was to protect against foreign influence then that becomes the important thing, and the law should be rewritten to be more precise about the founders' intentions.But actually, I'm not sure there's really much similarity between Cruz and Obama's birth situations anyway. Obama's parents were living in Kenya as citizens as I understand it, so Obama would have been born a citizen of Kenya. But Cruz's parents were temporarily living in Canada because his father had a job there -- visiting not living as citizens.However, the Left doesn't seem to care at all if the nation comes under foreign influence. Jar wants to see a Muslim in the white house. Muslims don't adapt to their adopted countries, they remain Muslims, so there's a foreign influence. This means the essence of America will change with the mentality of the leader. We've seen that with Obama. Me, I'd like to see America remain America. Perhaps it isn't possible. Perhaps we're going to come under some kind of totalitarian rule. The Left doesn't seem to mind the idea at all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I do love Alan Keyes. I wish he'd run in this election. If Trump was endorsing pedophilia of course that would be a deal breaker for me.But Keyes raises an interesting point about the Electoral College. As he reads the Constitution, apparently we elect the Electors and they have the final say. THEY ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO VOTE FOR EITHER TRUMP OR HILLARY. So far as I've understood it, if they decide not to vote for Trump, that automatically means voting for Hillary, but it's a whole new situation if they don't have to vote for Hillary either. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I strongly disagree with him about many things, but I certainly have more respect for him than I do Trump. His anti Obama and anti gay marriage stuff and abortion position is problematic, but given that pretty much goes along with 'Republican', and since the Republicans won the electors, I could live with him. Keyes seems much better at talking publicly as well as expressing and explaining his perspective.He is a Catholic and worked with the Catholic League. I would have thought this a deal breaker for you. Yup, they could elect Kasich or Keyes or Pence or any eligible citizen of their choice. The chances of this happening are almost zero, unless of course they are persuaded regarding Russian interference - which is still a remote possibility. After all, the electors are picked for their loyalty and I'm sure there are explicit 'rewards' for said loyalty built in. The chances of 270 of them all agreeing on an alternate candidate is very slim indeed.But this election cycle has been quite perverse and experts have been thwarted by events regularly. Still, it's an outside shot.That said, let's not forget Andrew Jackson.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'm not happy about it but the question is how far the Pope gets into the act. I might have to write him to find out his views on the Vatican. Kennedy however seemed to be pretty independent of Rome. There are actually "Protestants" who are more offensively tied to Rome than some Catholics.What about Andrew Jackson?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Pope's climate agenda could bring genocide

quote:

---

Yet when I look in the mirror of reason at the reflections Pope Francis offers in his encyclical, what I see looks unlike Jesus Christ (who as of now still comes to save and not harshly to penalize humanity). Pope Francis’ reflections look more like Marx, Stalin or Mao Zedong — materialistic ideologues who punished not for the sake of God or truth, but on account of resentful, self-idolizing human will and ideology.

---

Does that help?

Helps a lot, thanks. Good for him.

quote:

---

What about Andrew Jackson?

---

My history of this time is a little wobbly, but my understanding is that he 'won' but without reaching the majority (there were three big candidates), and the electoral college screwed him. The next time around he formed the Democratic Party, claimed the election was stolen from him by dodgy deals and won in a landslide.

So a Christian who moves from one country to another does not adapt to the adopted country or are they no longer Christians?Faith, do you have any idea how utterly stupid almost everything you post sounds?

Yes, that is quite correct. A few of the states have laws that do require them to vote as directed, but they could still vote differently. I think such a "faithless elector" from those states would just have to pay a fine of about $1000 to $5000, though I would think that they would never be chosen to serve as an elector again.The reason for having the Electoral College was that the Founding Fathers did not trust to people to make the right decision. They wanted to guard against a dishonest demagogue from deceiving the people into voting for him or from someone who is unqualified (including in character) to serve. It was believed that this body of responsible and wise men would protect our nation from such a charlatan.We are most certainly that situation that the Electoral College was intended to protect us from. So on the second Wednesday of December, we shall see whether they will actually serve their intended purpose. They either vote for somebody or they abstain from voting. A vote that is not for Trump does not automatically count as a vote for Clinton, and most certainly an abstaining vote is for nobody.But the Electoral College does not operate by a simple majority vote. The winning candidate must be chosen by the majority of all the electors. There are 538 electors. Half of that is 269. If both candidates get 269 votes, then they are tied and it has to go to Congress. That means that in order to win a candidate has to receive at the very least 270 votes.Right now, the count is at 306 for Trump and 232 for Clinton. In order to win, Clinton would need to pick up 38 votes while Trump loses at least 37. That would require at least 38 "faithless electors". "Faithless electors" have happened in past elections, but, as I understand, no where near in such numbers as we would need.There are electors chosen for Trump who refuse to vote for Trump. However, I don't know that any of them will switch to Clinton -- in fact I very much doubt it. The most likely result will be that Trump's ego will be wounded and he will unleash yet another petulant tweet-storm.The only real effect that these "faithless electors" could have would be if at least 37 Trump electors choose to not vote for him. That would drop him below the 270 votes that he needs. That would result in the Electoral College being unable to choose the President.If the Electoral College cannot choose the President, then the House of Representatives must vote. Given the Republican majority in the House, the result of that vote should be a foregone conclusion. But Trump has been doing a lot to alienate the GOP and Republican congressmen, so we may be in for a surprise or two there.As a description I've heard: It's like a train wreck ... to horrifying to watch and yet you cannot take your eyes away from it.

Wow. What does it mean to live in another country "as citizens"? Surely you are aware that you change citizenship only by disclaiming that explicitly. You don't lose your citizenship by simply staying in a foreign country, even indefinitely. In short your 'understanding' is not based on the facts.Actually, the circumstances are not similar because despite your inability to accept things, Obama was born in the US, has indisputable proof despite your inability to accept that. On the other hand, Cruz was born in Canada; fathered by a Cuban emigre. Cruz does not dispute any of that. Further, Cruz was indisputably a Canadian citizen (dual citizenship with his American citizenship). We know for a fact that Cruz disclaimed his Canadian citizenship prior to running for president. As Cruz's father was Cuban, that brings a third country into the question for Cruz.So how was Cruz a Canadian citizen? Apparently Cruz's mom and dad were living in Canada exactly "like a citizen". Summing things up, Cruz's claim would be far more shaky that Obama's if there was a question about either. But there is no question. In short, you say that the meaning of the requirement may not be what you think so the law should be rewritten to be more precise about some meaning that you don't even know, but that you are certain excludes Obama.The "law" that you talk idly about "rewiring" is the United States Constitution. It's current meaning is well known. It turns out that you simply don't like the Constitution.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.