And why is that an issue? It's really a non issue so far as I'm concerned. How he identifies himself is meaningless.
there is nothing in the constitution that says a president isn't allowed to be religious. there is however something that gives everyone the right to practice whatever religion they choose. silly liberal.
Sure, it's not a problem at all if he was running for the archbishop of St. Patrick's Cathedral. He's running for a public office though, so his American identity has to come first. I won't vote for someone who might make national level decisions based on his religious beliefs.
first of all he didn't say it would. secondly, that's a different conversation than whether he's eligible to be president. you claimed his statement made him ineligible. maybe I misunderstood what you meant. he could claim he worshipped satan, was a member of the nazi party and considered himself a satanist 1st, american 2nd and still be eligible to run for president.
While this turd from flyover land makes me think he's really a fake handle for someone making fun of his type, ftr I am a huge Waylon Jennings fan. One of the great voices of the 20th Century.
Sorry but you're not hearing me, you're listening to yourself. My original post was a simple response to this comment by Dierking: Direking: Actually, all of the suburban counties of New York, including most definitely LI, vote solidly Republican and have for as long as I can remember. The guy's (Dierking) been out of NYS for a while I guess and I simply pointed out an updated 'geopolitical' fact that Westchester overall was now blue - period. It had nothing to do with the 'fascinating' Astorino phenomenon, it was a simple declarative fact about the county's overall political makeup. You deciding from the get go to sniff "what you left out" (Astorino) was simply you taking it upon yourself to declare what the narrative was going to be from that point on. Even then I entertained the Astorino phenomenon comment (however besides the original point it was) to point out repeatedly the reason why Astorino was defeated his first time around in '05 and why that election went '180' only four years later. "On Briarcliff Manor your sentence structure....." <---- hahaha, ok Heywood Hale Broun, besides the needless 'tutelage,' exactly what part of the sentence "..parts of Briarcliff and Larchmont" didn't read clear to you? Would you have rather I worded it 'sections of' or perhaps used a modifier as in "'certain' parts?" . As far as 'Puff' goes, while the (mild, cheeky) 'insult' card may apply here, at the same time you also may want to look at the fact that many others besides myself have called you on your rhetorical stock in trade which all too often is a collection of assumptions wrapped in chest-puffing smugness. Sorry BB but dem's the facts. When it's just me mentioning it, you could shrug it off as me just being a retarded troll......but when it's others, it should at least give pause.... "Well, I assume you don't like my politics,..." Hardly. Actually we have (edit: quite) a bit in common politically speaking and I dare say I am even 'far left' on a number of issues such as the NSA, etc.. . The fact is (and yes, who gives a shit?), I'm a political pollster's worst nightmare given that I call 'em as I see 'em and am anything but beholden to any partisan dogma in all its lockstep hypocrisy. . And while I dispise the Tom DeLays and Jack Abramoff's of the world and view the Nixon triumvirate of Mitchell, Ehrlichman and Haldeman (and Dean) as one of the sleeziest of post-war quasi-Nazis to corrupt this country's political landscape..... ......at the same time (*and speaking of back-on-topic debates*) I also view the Debbie Wasserman-Schultz "shaddup and get back in line Sanders and O'Malley!" edict regarding the Democratic debate schedule as chilling--this from the party that champions itself on fighting voter suppression--and this without nary a peep from a lot of Democratic quarters (read: "make way for the eventual coronation!"). As for you yourself, it just seems that if someone asked you why the proverbial chicken crossed the road, that you'd somehow work the term "GOP," into it along with the attendent "1%, billionaires, etc" terms denoting blind partisanship.....which is all well and good I suppose, provided it was called for vs. pulling out and playing the partisan card come hell or high water. That's Paul "Johnny One-Note" Begala type bullshit. Aren't you above that? As for Hillary "first name celebrity" Clinton? Where does one begin? .... later...
It's not an issue as long as he doesn't let his self-professed identity (Christian first, American second) over-ride the responsibilities of the oath of office if he is elected. The President isn't allowed to be anything first and then an American. By definition he or she vows to uphold the Constitution. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."[1] So as long as Cruz makes it clear that he will act as an American, upholding the Constitution even if it comes into conflict with the Christian values he professes, then he's just fine as President. The Constitution clearly expects that somebody will suppress their religious values (or any other values for that matter) that come into conflict with the Constitution. The President does not have any power to propose or direct the process of a Constitutional Amendment or other change, that power being vested in the Congress and the States. You can't make somebody vow to protect the Constitution and then allow them to make plans to alter it. The President vows to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Congressmen vow to support the Constitution.
you can just tell he was the type of weirdo in college that never got laid. Even back then he had that punchable face, this false aura of superiority, an inability to seem genuine. Put that all on top of your typical young person's angst and the typical desire to go any lengths to get laid and you have yourself someone with no friends batting .000 with the ladies. Lots of them types of losers in colleges around the country. Its why your 'everyman' type, no matter if they go to college or not, can just walk into colleges and clean up with the broads just by appearing genuine for 5 mins while the classmates get stuck in the friend zone. -- not saying any of that should disqualify him from the presidency. just an observation
I am of the mindset there is nothing really wrong with those comments but just by reading your eloquent description couldn't you say he's already proven he will blur the lines between his faith and the constitution? The Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage as constitutionally protected yet he's advocating against that. Isn't that just one example of him putting his faith above "preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution"? I mean that's just one example though. -He is strongly against abortion and emergency contraception pills even though that was deemed to be a protected right under the 14th Amendment.. -He was one of the strongest supporters of that crazy lady in Kentucky that refused to issue marriage licenses.. Isn't it against the constitution for local government officials to refuse federal rights to their citizens. She and Cruz cited her first amendment rights but its more like a reverse 1st amendment violation because she was a government official and the first amendment exists to protect citizens from the government not the government from itself personally I think he's just full of shit looking for the evangelical vote myself with those comments
What bs. It says it all that you have "misquoted" (meaning lied about) your own quote involving your first reference to Briarcliff. And what is wrong with the way I brought up Astorino as a Republican winning in a blue area? The rest of your post is irrelevant, including your standing by your personal attack.
I don't think any modern president completely agrees with the constitution. Whether that's because of their faith or something else internally shouldn't really matter. They still have to uphold the law. I do think he's just saying it for votes too.
Meanwhile, migrants/refugees or whatever you wanna call them continue wreaking havoc in Europe... Whoever is for open borders (mostly Democrats) should have their brains examined.
He does make a point. Trump vs. Clinton is a no contest Hillary win I think based off American voters.
He looks like the guy who played Michael J Fox's father in Back to the Future...That character I mean
