The bottom line is, Joe isn't principled enough to make a stand on the issue. I will. I'm not voting for Cruz because to do so would be to tarnish the document that is the written foundation of our government. Just because he has an "R" before his name, doesn't mean we should accept that which we would be screaming at the top of our lungs if a "D" was doing it. I'm pretty sure that he violated the Constitutional requirement when he was elected to Senator from Texas, and if that's the case then he belongs the same place Hitlery belongs - in prison!
On a separate note, I talk to a lot of people throughout the day, and predominately, the lament that is repeated most often is, "There isn't a good candidate to vote for this time around." And because I need both hands to hold my nose from the stench, it doesn't leave me a free hand to pull the ballot lever. I'm not going to choose from the lesser of two evils!
HinMO
3/14/2016 11:50 AM
"Nobody cared"? Hey, I cared. I know a lot of loyal Americans who cared. But apparently loyal American conservatives are "nobodies" unless we're beltway vermin, Faux News reporters, judges, or "Republican" politicos. Nice. [More]
Because of the outcry calling him on hypocrisy, Farah continues to offer self-serving excuses.
"If I were convinced" sounds like it's coming from the same place the Clintonian "I do not recall" comes from. Who can definitively challenge it?
And who believes it?
Yo, Joe, did you even reach out to Cruz and press his people on why the only documents made public to date don't support eligibility, and the rest are sealed unless and until Ted Cruz has them released? Did you ask his campaign handlers why he just ignores and dismisses this, rather than putting reasonable fears to bed, and share their response?
Yes, this definitely goes back to Obama and the massive cover-up of his background, including his college and foreign travel records -- right down to the laughing things off. It even suggests Cruz himself may have been ineligible to become a senator at the time he assumed office. But what it suggests more than anything is an illegitimate government with clubs held over heads to keep those in the "opposition party" from pressing too hard.
That and a complicit media.
Here's a hypothetical: If you were on the jury for these nutjobs, evidence and testimony make it pretty clear they're guilty of threatening another person. But could you say --beyond a reasonable doubt -- they're guilty of violating the statue against threatening the "president," as defined by the Constitution?
Back to the main point: I see a lot of equivocation from Farah as he strives to argue principles. Unless he can say he's certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Cruz is eligible, and lay out a compelling case beyond "Billy's mom let's him do it" and "I'm tired," they're all just words.
posted by David Codrea at 10:25 AM on Mar 12, 2016
1 Comment
Close this window Jump to comment formThe bottom line is, Joe isn't principled enough to make a stand on the issue. I will. I'm not voting for Cruz because to do so would be to tarnish the document that is the written foundation of our government. Just because he has an "R" before his name, doesn't mean we should accept that which we would be screaming at the top of our lungs if a "D" was doing it. I'm pretty sure that he violated the Constitutional requirement when he was elected to Senator from Texas, and if that's the case then he belongs the same place Hitlery belongs - in prison!
On a separate note, I talk to a lot of people throughout the day, and predominately, the lament that is repeated most often is, "There isn't a good candidate to vote for this time around." And because I need both hands to hold my nose from the stench, it doesn't leave me a free hand to pull the ballot lever. I'm not going to choose from the lesser of two evils!
HinMO
3/14/2016 11:50 AM