Our friends at the Brown County Republicans had a booth at the Brown County fair this past week, and did a little straw polling to determine fair attendees’ favorite candidate for president.
And I think we’ve determined that a lot of people watch TV.
Donald Trump came in first, which I’ve heard is possibly a sign of the impending apocalypse.
Thankfully, it was all in fun. And we have at least several months to go before anybody should consider any polling seriously.
You’ve been saying the Trump collapse has been in the works since Trump called out McCain.
I think we have determined that a lot of people are FED UP with career politicians of both political stripes.
If I would have told you back in 2012 that Donald Trump would be leading at this point in the 2016 race, you would have laughed at me. You would have been justified in doing so.
Most analysts would say that all three of the top vote-getters in this poll are very unlikely to win the general election. I agree. The betting odds agree. Democrats undoubtedly agree. Some of you want to believe they have a chance but do they really?
The truth is that Trump, Carson and Cruz would have a huge uphill climb in the general election. The same with Huckabee, Fiorina and Paul, in my opinion. That’s six of our top eight candidates. It appears that 75% of us have some secret wish to see a President Hillary.
That was Romney’s, McCain’s, Dole’s and Ford’s theme for their nominations. There is no reason to settle.
Were not Bush 1988, Bush 2000 & Bush 2004 election victories? Not all Republican presidential victories have had very conservative candidates.
In fact, in the last sixty years, there was only one. And Ronald Reagan was a tremendous candidate and a known quantity.
I would agree with that. The problem is HW Bush was a statesman who benefitted tremendously from the Reagan wave. G W Bush was a strong social conservative and galvanized the country towards that cause. Neither of them were very economically conservative. Maybe Jeb is – he probably is more than his brother.
Right now the GOP is looking for an economic/constitutional conservative first.
there’s a fascinating book i’m going to go find, it was highlighted on cspan’s book tv last week. a gentleman has comprehensively contrasted reagan’s writings with his actual choices as a governor and president. as a writer he shows an unparalleled fidelity to the highest levels of conservatism, but in actual practice, reagan was a firm believer in effective compromise and pragmatic increments, instead of the tantrum-based all-or-nothing of the far right today. his favorite saying was something along the lines of ‘i’ll take 80 percent of what i want any day, rather than lose 100 percent of it.’ essentially his point is that there are two different reagan icons that get worshipped, depending on what group you’re a member of.
What about the tantrum-base, all-or-nothing of the dictator, Barry Sotero, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama? Talk about a petulant child!
The GOP has a big problem right now. I’m a Trump, Carson, Rubio supporter.
The problem is most of the establishment are Jeb Bush supporters. The establishment makes up about 25% of the vote in the primary but are about 90% of the money.
If Jeb Bush gets the nomination I will begrudgingly support him – but – I do not want another Bush. I do not want another Clinton. This is not a country to be ruled by one family and shame on Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton for not realizing that.
Even though I might support Jeb Bush begrudgingly in a general election MANY Republicans will not.
The fight is going to come down to the outsider and an establishment candidate. As the candidates begin to drop out this race could get very dicey. There are about 40-50% of the GOP electorate that does not want a politician. These voters are informed, frustrated and willing to try something different.
If the GOP race becomes Trump vs Jeb Bush then I can see a real scenario where voters stay home if Jeb Bush gets the nomination. If Rubio is the establishments alternative to Trump then I could see where voters would be ok with giving him a try. But if it’s an outsider who will blow up the system vs an oligarchy then I have real concerns about what happens because I do not believe a sizable portion of the GOP (maybe even a majority) does not want another Bush.
The candidate will have to be an outsider candidate like Trump, Carson, a conservative governor or a consensus candidate like Rubio. The establishment will need to push Jeb Bush aside for the good of the country and find a consensus candidate at some point.
This is unlikely to happen as Jeb Bush has a lot of money and will stay around for a long time as the field narrows. If the establishment picks the wrong candidate voters will go third party or stay home. Faith has been lost by a huge segment of the electorate in the Bush’s, Clinton’s, Obama and the two party system.
(I do believe Jeb Bush is a good guy and would make a good president. But I do not like the oligarchy that is descending on American politics – it truly is a DC class vs the rest of us.)
At this point I would be happy with Trump, Rubio or Dr. Carson. I like most of the top ten including Jindal.
Minnehaha GOP corn poll results were similar, Trump first, Cason second. Except Bush and Walker were third and fourth. Carson really picked up a lot after the debate. Anecdotally, it didn’t strike me that ideological conservatives were voting for Trump, but the main theme I heard was satisfaction about his combativeness.
Look for results from the Turner county Corn Poll! The party will also have the corn poll at the State Fair in Huron.
“Carson” Pardon typo.
/refills coffee cup.
We are witnessing a fight for the soul of the GOP. I can’t believe Donald Trump is the guy I am cheering for. I honestly would be happiest in the end if Dr. Carson won the nomination. He is very grounded. Trump is a fighter though for the working person like no other. It’s unreal and I’m glad that this race is so contested and fiery.
Democrats unfortunately are fighting between two soulless candidates who want power or socialism.
Can we start calling it the “Corn Kernel Poll” instead of the “Corn Poll”?
I just don’t like the name “Corn Poll”
Hey! Keep your comments to yourself. Or somebody might “corn poll” you.
How about the World’s Only Corn Palace poll.
I honestly believe that if Trump were the nominee, we would lose the Presidency by up to 20 points. It could be worse than the Reagan/Carter landslide. We would lose the Senate and a good chunk of House. Oh, and say goodbye to the majority on the Supreme Court for twenty years.
Why? If you think Romney gave them material, just think of the ads they would run against Trump. I know Obama is in over his head but some of you really believe that the voters will hand over the nuclear codes to “the Donald”? Seriously?
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton
FOX News Poll
Clinton 47, Trump 42
Clinton +5
I have a feeling Donald Trump will destroy Hillary in a general election because he will go scorched earth on her record. The other GOP candidates don’t have the guts to take her head on. They would be worried about “tone.”
What are the odds that someone without political or military experience will be elected Commander in Chief? Could someone tell me when that last occurred?
I am not saying that it is impossible. But, I am 99% sure it won’t happen.
Nate Silver gives Trump a 2% chance of winning, and a few key ways to watch the bubble burst.:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/
Trump is going to be our next President!
Can anyone say “Obama”? Less than a full term as a US Senator doesn’t give you much experience, especially when you’ve never accomplished anything in your life except the writing of two autobiographies-a pretty arrogant thing to do for somebody who is so young and has accomplished so little.
You would hope that someone with no actual experience, expertise, or knowledge would surround themselves with good people, but not so with Obummer.
I want to have coffee with the five people who voted for Gilmore. The guy WILL be in the Cabinet and the first to drop out of the race.
P.S. I think Jimmy James is closer to true odds than Nate Silver.
There is a maxim: always leave them wanting more. How much more of 24/7 Trump news until people start saying “I have had enough?”
Every family has an Uncle Donald. You love him and love being around him during family gatherings but on Sunday night while driving home, the first thing you say to your spouse is “Aunt Marla (or it that his third wife’s name?) is a Saint.”
Trump does point up one key issue that needs to be addressed. Campaign finance. By turning down donations and doing it all with his own money, he shines a bright light on the highway to oligarchy in our nation’s politics, and shows us that we’re already there.
Anyone with a little charisma and an extra billion dollars to blow can make hamburger out of our political system, it seems.
It’s a situation we might be wise to address, regardless of which party one belongs to.
Sidenote: Trump could just as well be doing this number on the Dems. Maybe that’s the part Bill Clinton talked him out of. 😉
wow, and i was still considering the effect trump’s rejection of slush fund money as being a public rejection of influence-peddling cronyism. i didn’t see the ‘buy myself a throne’ angle coming.
Then you must not have watched the debate or his comments afterward. He has openly admitted that he, as a big-dollar donor, intends to buy influence and access, and has (at least in his mind) successfully done so repeatedly throughout the years. The bigger the bucks, the more influence and access required.
It’s a pretty short step to the conclusion that if you have enough dough and want to buy your way into being a to world class political player you can do it, and he’s going to prove it by being his own billionaire sugar daddy.
The plus side, I guess (if there is one), is that at least we’ll know where his money came from. 😉
i heard that and i totally took it to be trump telling us that he was very familiar with how broken the system was, not bragging about his future plans to further break the system for his own gain. hmm.
i’m going to guess you’d also disagree with me saying that it’s foolish to consider trump to be some kind of idiot because he’s never held high elective office, and really foolish to think that he could never mentally grasp the intricacies of our complex politics and foreign affairs.
because of course being beholden to the big money that fueled your election infuses great authority and wisdom to those who take the cash and win.
i don’t think that trump feels he can just plunk down cash and it’s a walk to the white house. if he didn’t have massive amounts of personal wealth, he’d find a different way to highlight the corruption of campaign cash while he took some. trump is a prime-time television producer and performer, and that unique vantage gives you access to the latest known technology in mass psychology and persuasion. trump is working the science of it all, believe me and could do that even if he didn’t put a dime of his own into the campaign.
He’s a perfect storm of a guy, not without talent, or patriotism, but driven by narcissism more than anything else. he’s doing this because he can, and I hear you that if he could do it some other way, he would. His approach is fundamentally fascist and delusional. Do we really have any argument about that?
You’re off topic Bill–rant & rave about Obama somewhere else.
the only thing i know for sure about anyone’s political theory is what was illustrated and proved every year since nixon was finessing vietnam – – the establishment wants everyone to keep sleeping, and the anarchists want to generate heat and wake everyone up. the best example of a delusional run for president can really only be found in the person of jailbird lyndon larouche.
if trump starts raving about the queen of england and the bretton woods accords, that’s when to bring in the ‘d’ word.
We elected Bush 41 because we believed he had the Right stuff. Hoping for some more (Tear down that Wall) but instead we got (Read My Lips) so we elected Slick Willy because he had some serious Huevo’s and wasn’t queasy when he talked to the press. (Or tough Female reporters) (Somewhere in there was the spelling of PoTatOes or TomaToes) ((Like spelling out Staned matters; or Blu?;) We then elected The Prodigy ( Who was forever stained by 911) Doing God’s work in Afganistan and the Devils’ in Iraq. ( Shame on you Dick Cheney!) Which gives us the Supreme Deal maker (Give em everything they want-act like we fought for it-& call it great for Peace President) leading into (Pissed off Americans) (How many servers can we frigging lose?) While a half crazy Rich business guy tells us something (The Drive By Media is forbidden to say) concerning the truth about our borders; and the GOP wants to go back to the family which raised our taxes and gave us our current President.
Seriously; any Republican except Jeb Bush.
Enquirer,
I worked for Senator Abdnor from 1981-1985 during the Reagan years. President Reagan was the consummate pragmatist. Pushed the envelope as far as he could and then struck a deal. Everytime. Never left the table.
exactly. that was my point, because reagan is cited as inspiration by so many people who hold their breath and turn blue if they don’t get every single thing they demand and i never know where that comes from. his philosophical writings obviously.
If Tiger Woods, Mark Sanford, or Elliott Spitzer said, “I know how to make your marriage great again. Just let me alone with your wife for a couple of hours,” would you hire them to be your marriage counselor?
If John Dilinger said, “don’t put me in jail. Make me the head of security at Ft. Knox,” how many think that is wise?
It is my reaction when people think Trump is the solution to making America great again. He survived and prospered where graft and bribing politicians is part of business and even admits he gives money to get people to do things for him.
People project to others what is inside them. The liar thinks everyone lies. The person who can be bribed, bribes. The adulterer thinks everyone cheats or at least wants to.
Making anything better begins with WITNESS. Former addicts aren’t good counsellors when the are using but when they are clean.
Has anyone ever heard Don Trump say, “My giving with expectations was wrong. I never should have done it. Everything I got was ill-gotten.” No, instead he brags he got Hillary to come to his wedding because he gave her money.
I am not perfect. Every opponent and supporter of Don Trump isn’t perfect. The question always is, “is the person sorry for what they have done and resolved to be better?”
And, the guy who we think is the answer to the malaise in America is a guy who claims he is a believer and yet has never asked for forgiveness. Never. Ever.
I don’t get the support for Don Trump regardless of how one likes what he says today. It’s like having a soft spot for a Mafia Don because he admits he is “The Don” of all Dons.
Troy,
People are just ready to stick it to the political class. People are tired of being ignored and Trump is the loudest blowhorn.
Not to mention that he’s appealing to people who aren’t partisan. They are informed and hard working.
The Donald is thumbing his nose at the political pundits and king makers who are angry because they can’t get under his skin. Instead, he is telling the American people what they want to hear. Yet none of the remaining 16 R’s in the race have the moxie to tell him to shove it. Everyone wants to go PC and make nice. The Donald doesn’t care about PC and doesn’t want to play nice. in fact, he can buy all the marbles he wants and build his own playground and not let any of the other kids play in his sand box. Its great political theater and a marvelous slice of America in the 21st Century. We have allowed $ and shadow corporations to purchase the election before 2016. The Donald is just upfront about it!
He’s not ‘Telling the American people what they want to hear,’ he’s telling about half of the membership of the Republican party what they want to hear. Big difference. Huuuuge.
Actually, Trump is doing no such thing.
Trump is telling ALL Americans what he would do as president, and many of those are liking it–Rep. & Dems alike.
Much of what Trump says riles most Rep.
Actually, it is precisely as I stated. Here are the numbers:
http://www.pollingreport.com/S-Z.htm#Trump
Well now you’ve shifted into opinion polls.
Your comments were about Trump and what he was saying–“he’s telling about half of the membership of the Republican party what they want to hear”
Your opinion polls say NOTHING about what he was saying–the polls are about OPINIONS of candidates, not what they said.
Okay let’s pick a topic. You choose. Name one where you can demonstrate that Trump’s idea is in line with what the majority of Americans want to hear, and show us your proof.
“he’s telling about half of the membership of the Republican party what they want to hear.”
What many Reps. and many Dems liked about Trump was HOW HE WAS SAYING whatever he was saying, and damning the blowback.
Your claim that Trump was telling Rep what they wanted to hear was simply false, for he wasn’t saying ANYTHING about issues. The impressions formed were simply of HOW he was interacting with the media–THAT’s what the polls were measuring.
Only recently did Trump start to get into substance.
Your polls that you quote in no way measured WHAT Trump was saying, only impressions of him.
Big difference, Huuuuge.
“Name one where you can demonstrate that Trump’s idea ”
I can’t, nor can you make a claim about WHAT he was saying (kowtowing to Rep.) because he hasn’t expressed any substantive ideas at all (until recently).
In fact, that’s what Dems were whining about: that Trump was all blather and no substance.
You cannot have it both ways–you cannot assert that Trump was simply full of meaningless bluster, but he was feeding the Rep. faithful manna at the same time!
You can’t. Right. Thanks.
“he’s telling about half of the membership of the Republican party what they want to hear”
What was he telling the Rep that they wanted to hear??
Geeze, do I have to do all your homework for you? Here’s a list,take your pick:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm
Then if you have a point to make, please just make it. This is getting tedious.
See also:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/18/that-new-cnn-poll-is-about-trumps-lead-solidifying-not-growing-yet/
Nearly everything on the “ontheissues” link is years if not decades old, and includes many quotes that most Rep. with disagree with.
Did you bother reading it before you linked it?
You claimed:
“he’s telling about half of the membership of the Republican party what they want to hear”
Surely YOU had some Trump quotes in mind when you typed it, or did you just make it up, and later went searching for something to back it up? Why would I have to do any research when I made no such assertion–YOU DID!
WHAT did Trump say that you think Rep. wanted to hear?
The WashPo link is more polling info.
You claimed that:
“he’s telling about half of the membership of the Republican party what they want to hear”
WHAT did you mean when you typed that? WHAT DID TRUMP SAY THAT REP. WANTED TO HEAR, as you asserted?
Face it: you just made something up to reinforce your biases, and when challenged, you AGAIN had to go fishing for opinion polls UNRELATED to your post about Trump feeding red meat to the Rep. masses. Big difference. Huuuuge.
From your ontheissues link:
Trump:
Pro-choice, but ban partial birth abortion. (Jul 2000)
Favors abortion rights but respects opposition. (Dec 1999)
Gee, how is that telling Rep. what they want to hear?
Another ontheissue quote:
Legalize drugs and use tax revenue to fund drug education. (Apr 2011)
Uh, Rep. (and most Dems) would be appalled but such a plan)
You didn’t read that link, did you?
I find it fascinating, but Donald Trump is refreshing. Don’t get me wrong, I’m supporting someone other than Trump, but he is right on the money.
agreed. without all the fancy polling, and with only the anecdotal evidence around me, I know that 65 to 70 percent of women will not vote for trump, unless maybe he’s running against kim jung il. even then there’d be a coin toss in the booth. i take this from the reaction of women i talk to about this. some conservative women who like what trump is saying disregard his past egregious public behavior, but for everyone else i ask it’s like an instant ‘no way.’ they don’t even think about it.
trump is making it possible to have a wider public debate on a wider range of issues than the establishment political marketing gurus want to have happen. so let’s just see where this all goes.
Thune in trouble? Hilarious.
Prediction #1: no statewide Democrat gets a % equal to the % they have in registration. I think it is currently 36% but is declining so the hurdle will become easier.
Prediction #2: if there is opposition for Thune, the total of the Presidemt, Senate and House candidates will not total 100%.
lyndon larouche turns 93 on september 8th. we should get him something really nice, like a flashy name for his cult, since l. ron hubbard beat him to “scientology”
As long as I’m doing Per Curiam’s research for him/her? might as well throw this in here. Recall that my assertion was, “he’s telling about half of the membership of the Republican party what they want to hear.”
Here’s a rough sketch of that “half.”
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-deep-dive-who-supports-donald-trump
(excerpt follows)
“Trump Republicans are more conservative than other Republicans on almost every issue: Trump supporters are more likely to support the Confederate flag, own a gun, think the government should support traditional values and believe that black Americans who can’t get ahead in society are personally responsible for their own condition. But the biggest differences between Trump and non-Trump Republicans relate to their views of immigrants and their preferences for pro-life candidates. More than eight in 10 Trump Republicans view immigrants as a burden, compared to about six in 10 non-Trump Republicans. Given Trump’s repeated emphasis and far-right position on immigration, it is not surprising that so many of his supporters differ from other Republicans on the topic.
Perhaps just as interestingly, Trump Republicans do not seem to prioritize abortion issues as much as supporters of other candidates. Supporters of Trump were 15 percentage points less likely than other Republicans to say that they would be more likely to support a candidate who favors stricter limits on abortion. This does not necessarily mean, however, that Trump supporters are less pro-life than other Republicans, but rather that their views on abortion do not wholly determine their choice of candidate. In fact, 40% of Trump supporters said that a candidate’s stance on abortion would not make much difference to their vote compared to only 28% of supporters of other candidates. This may provide some insight as to why they continue to support Trump despite his flip-flopping on the issue.”
msnbc has the most reliable data on any subject you can name, and lots of it. i think the debate just ended with a big old bang.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, enquirer. Which of the data points do you take issue with? They seemed reasonable enough to me. And the sample size was “yooge!”
Feel free to enlighten us otherwise.
But just shooting the messenger doesn’t cut it.
You’re smarter than that.
oh, not today. i draw such a blank when msnbc is introduced and i’m obliged to examine their programming and data. i just don’t have it in me some days. sorry.
“Here’s a rough sketch of that “half.””
Great, now what has Trump been telling that half that you referenced earlier.
We KNOW Trump’s poll numbers,popularity, etc., but you never claimed that
“he’s appealing to about half of the membership of the Republican party”
You said that:
“he’s telling about half of the membership of the Republican party what they want to hear”
What was he saying that you believed appealed to the Rep. party???
It’s really simple: BACK UP YOUR WORDS.
He’s having a town hall meeting in new hampshire right now. Go turn on your tv and listen to it. Then watch the news and see what your half or more fellow repubs have to say. Then youll have your answer and confirmation of the validity of my assertion. Im done doing your thinking for you kid.
“Then watch the news and see what your half or more fellow repubs have to say. ”
But that has NOTHING to do with your claim that
““he’s telling about half of the membership of the Republican party what they want to hear””
Your claim was about what TRUMP was saying, not what other Rep. said and not what he is saying now.
Do you read or understand what you wrote???
“your half or more fellow repubs ”
Once again, you’re making crap up. I’m a registered Democrat.
You see Billy, I KNEW you were making crap up when you wrote:
““he’s telling about half of the membership of the Republican party what they want to hear””
It was and is a strawman.
That’s what I challenged you, and you could not back it up.
When you wrote, “he’s telling about half of the membership of the Republican party what they want to hear”, you were simply offering YOUR OWN skewed opinion about Trump and Reps–not about what Trump said or what Rep. wanted to hear.
The fact remains: Trump’s popularity with Rep. is less about WHAT he says, than his willingness to take on the lame stream “gotcha” media. Even you admit as much as your links offer quotes that would make most Rep. squirm.
…you can lead a horse to water…
Yes, it makes about half of the GOP’s squirm. The other half agree with what he’s saying. Exactly as per my assertion. Hardly any Democrats agree with him, very few Indys do.
Pack it in buddy, you’re not making any sense.
For my new little buddy PC. Probably what s/he’s yammering about? Enjoy:
http://youtu.be/ufGlBv8Z3NU
“The other half agree with what he’s saying.”
Well, you have yet to back this claim up! You have yet to provide to us just what Trump is saying that’s so appealing to Rep.!!! You cannot do this because Trump has said so little of substance until recently. WHERE’s THE BEEF Billy Boy?
Trump is appealing to Rep., NOT for what he says, but his refreshing attitude when whatever he says irritates the media and he refuses to back off. THAT’S HIS appeal at the moment.
NONE of your cited polls provide a Trump statement and then ask respondents for an opinion on what Trump has said–they’re all about whether respondents agree or disagree with Trump in GENERAL.
Big difference. Huuuge.
Trump is JUST LIKE OBAMA–all fluff and Styrofoam columns with icing of progressive platitudes–no substance. Dems were & are enamored with Obama not for what Obama said or did, but his image. And Dems ate it up never once bothering to delve into the divisiveness and racism on which Obama built his campaign.
” Im done doing your thinking for you kid.”
Another Flem lie!
You can hold a mirror up to Flem’s face, but it’s still an ass.
‘NONE of your cited polls provide a Trump statement and then ask respondents for an opinion on what Trump has said–they’re all about whether respondents agree or disagree with Trump in GENERAL.
Big difference. Huuuge.’
——————-
Nope. No difference whatsoever. Just another way to say exactly what I’ve been saying all along. Trump is telling around half of the country’s Republicans what they want to hear. You just made my case for me. Again. Thank you.
“:Trump is telling around half of the country’s Republicans what they want to hear.”
WHAT IS HE TELLING THEM????
…you can lead a donkey to the water, but all he sees is an ass staring back at him…
Sigh. Okay write this down.
Some of them probably like hearing him say that Obama isn’t a natural born citizen, and so should never bave been qualified to be President. Other’s may enjoy it when he says he wants to make “America great again” because they agree with him that they don’t think it’s great now, still others might like it when he says everyine on the stage but him is a puppet and that they’re all for sale. Some might like the way he trashes women like Rosie O’Donnell and Megan Kelly. Some like the way he thinks we can solve the middle east problem by bombing the oil fields and taking all the Arab’s money. Still others like it when he says Mexicans are murderers and rapists sent here by their government. Others like his idea of canceling American born citizen’s birthright and building wall the size of the Great one in China. Some might like his idea of creating a huuuge police state and rounding up and deporting 11 or 12 million people.
The list goes on and on, but IN GENERAL, the polls show that about half of the Republicans like what he’s saying enough to want to hear it again and again and again.
That’s why he’s the frontrunner so far in the GOP primary polls. Between those who say he’s their first choice and those who say he’s their second, the two add up to just under 50% (aka “about half.” )
My statement was always a generalization and was offered in response to Joel Price’s assertion that “Instead, he is telling the American people what they want to hear.” My purpose was to clarify the actually, not all Americans want to hear his baloney, just some of them. And of those “some” the majority of them are Republicans. I stand by my statement, and nothing you have offered here counters it. Nor do I expect anything you write subsequently to do so. But you are welcome to have the last word.
“Some of them probably like hearing him say that Obama isn’t a natural born citizen, and so should never bave been qualified to be President. ”
Trump never said any such thing.
“Other’s may enjoy it when he says he wants to make “America great again” because they agree with him that they don’t think it’s great now, ”
By any objective measure, America is not a “great country” right now, and Obama’s been in charge of that decline.
“still others might like it when he says everyine on the stage but him is a puppet and that they’re all for sale.”
If that were true, and since he tells Rep. what they want to hear, then according to you, ALL Rep. would be supporting Trump. They don’t.
“Some might like the way he trashes women like Rosie O’Donnell and Megan Kelly.”
Rosie is a pig. Trump did not trash Kelly. Shes a big gurl and can handle candidates whining about their unfair treatment.
“Some like the way he thinks we can solve the middle east problem by bombing the oil fields and taking all the Arab’s money. ”
He said no such thing. He wants to take their oil.
“Still others like it when he says Mexicans are murderers and rapists sent here by their government. ”
What a despicable charge. Trump said no such thing. And besides– one crime committed by any illegal alien is one too many.
“Others like his idea of canceling American born citizen’s birthright ”
He wants to do no such thing. He wants the 14th Amendment to mean something.
“and building wall the size of the Great one in China.”
Well, the Democrats voted FOR the wall as well!
” Some might like his idea of creating a huuuge police state and rounding up and deporting 11 or 12 million people. ”
You wean like what Obama was doing in his first 4 years? It was Obama who deported more Mexicans in 4 years than ANY president before!
Round up about 1-2 million , and the rest will self deport.
” the polls show that about half of the Republicans like what he’s saying enough to want to hear it again and again and again. ”
No, that’s not what the polls show—NO POLL has measured what Trump has said or reactions to his plans. They’ve all been like you; general impressions. No specifics. Hating on someone you disagree with.
“But you are welcome to have the last word.”
yeah I know. You’ve said that at least twice already.
But blowhards rarely remembers all the donkey dung they’ve dropped , so it just goes on & on.
See Bill, your claims of what Trump aid are so full of inaccuracies that you are essentially hearing what you wanna hear. Yet YOU claim that Rep. are hearing the same things. They CAN’T, because Trump is not saying what you quoted him as saying.
What Trump is saying doesn’t matter to you (because you cannot and have not accurately quoted him) and is doesn’t matter to Rep (at this point).
Trump is ALL about bluster. You don’t like it/him; many Rep. find it refreshing.
i think that among those interested in trump, all they know is that the usual pack of sad sacks that are offered to them every election season never get it done. never. they’re willing to roll the dice.
Per Curiam,
Regarding Trump doubting Obama being born here, from February of this year: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/27/donald-trump-cpac_n_6756836.html
“The White House released Obama’s long-form birth certificate in 2011. On Friday, Donald Trump took credit for successfully pressuring the president to release the form.
“Now, whether or not that was a real certificate, because a lot of people question it … I certainly question it,” Trump said. “But he didn’t do it for Hillary Clinton, he didn’t do it for [Arizona Sen.] John McCain, but he did it for me. So in one sense, I’m proud of it. Now all we need to do is find out whether or not it was real.”
Of course Trump made a name for himself questioning Obama’s birth certificate.
Few remember that it was Hillary’s minions who first raised the issue.
Per Curiam: Split into two posts because of spam filter:
Regarding Trump claiming babies of illegal Mexican’s born in the US not being citizens: https://www.yahoo.com/politics/donald-trump-says-14th-amendment-is-127077752761.html
““I don’t think they have American citizenship,“ the real estate mogul and former Celebrity Apprentice host replied. “We have to start a process where we take back our country. Our country is going to hell. We have to start a process, Bill, where we take back our country.”
O’Reilly asked Trump if he would seek to amend the amendment.
“It would take too long,” Trump said. “I’d much rather find out whether or not anchor babies are actually citizens because a lot of people don’t think they are.” (Supreme Court ruled 9-0 they are US citizens)
The question of whether children born to folks here ILLEGALLY (having entered or remained illegally) has not been addressed by the S.Ct.
If one looks at the debate and meaning of the 14th Amendment at the time it was proposed and enacted, it is clear that NO ONE contemplated a right of citizenship for offspring of those who had no formal loyalty to the US.
” (Supreme Court ruled 9-0 they are US citizens)”
No it did not. It ruled that a child born in the US of non-citizen parents who were in the US LEGALLY is a citizen. It has never addressed whether children born in the US of parents here illegally are citizens.
No civilized country confers citizenship upon persons simply for being born on US soil. It’s crazy.
And citizenship is a two-way street: NAs did not become citizens (even if they were born in the US) of the US until the US ALLOWED them to become citizens. Why not? Because citizenship is understood to be about loyalty to a COUNTRY (or tribe). Much like say illegal aliens form Mexico, it is unclear where their loyalty lies.
It was understood by NA tribes and the US that NAs’ primary loyalty was to their tribes. Perfectly fine and understandable. But one cannot switch the loyalty inherent in citizenship to the US WITHOUT the US accepting the change.
Per Curiam,
The issue is the language with regard to “subject to the jurisdiction of” which at the time of the passage of the 14th Amendment was in particular targeted to mean children born here where the parent was in one of two classes: (1) Invading armies or (2) children born of Diplomats. The principle was simple: Invading armies and diplomats were recognized by international and common law as not subject to the laws of the US. Indians were quickly incorporated by the same concept because the Treaties provided they kept their sovereignty on reservations. But, overtime, the Indian question was sovriegnty became less defined as the reservations were treated more like territories (ala Puerto Rico) and in 1924 the transition was completed and Indians born in the US were given full citizenship.
However, the Ark ruling of 1898 ruled that unless the homeland of the parent was deemed an enemy state/at war (under the principle of invading/maurading army) or in the US under diplomatic law, citizenship was determined by common law principle of “jus solis” or “law of soil” and thus where the child is born determines citizenship.
Prior to Chinese Exclusion Act (which precipitated the Ark ruling), the concept of being in the US and not “subject to US jurisdiction” only applied to diplomats (here by permission as we accepted they weren’t subject to US law) or invading armies. We basically had open borders and everyone here was deemed to be here legally. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first act to restrict emigration to the US from nations other than nations at war with the US. In 1921, we began to limit immigrants similar to what we do now (set quotas on immigrants from different nations with exceptions for certain skills).
In order for the Supreme Court to rule children of illegal immigrants aren’t citizens over the principle of jus soli (law of the soil), one must make one of four arguments:
1) Assert the legal principle of jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent). This has never been a principle used in the US and there is virtually no instance where this principle has been used and many of Supreme Court rulings (Ark is one) and all Founding documents as well as discussion around the 14th Amendment specifically directly and indirectly assumed jus soli. This is an argument dead on arrival.
2) Illegal immigrants are in principle essentially similar to diplomats. Without a lot of detail, since diplomats are here specifically by permission, I’ll assume this isn’t a good argument unless asserted by you.
3) Illegal immigrants in principle resemble an “invading army.” This argument is weak because an invading army is one in which the US is at war. We are not at war with Mexico or Guatemala. Additionally, I don’t think we want to go there because it would affect our war on Terror with regard to how we legally treat terrorists because we currently don’t treat them as foreign soldiers and those captured are Prisoners of War under international treaty and not criminals. More specifically, if we deem illegal immigrants as an ad hoc invading army (which we don’t do to terrorists) or declare war on Mexico, we’d have to extend prisoner of war protections to illegal immigrants under international law.
In short, I don’t think in the end the Supreme Court will ultimately rule the Constitution jus soli doesn’t apply unless we legally declare war on Mexico or deem them an ad hoc invading army. I’m not sure we want to go there. But, if you do, make your case.
The only way to Constitutionally accomplish a change in how children born to illegal immigrants is via a Constitutional Amendment, which requires approval of 38 states. I don’t have to think very hard to list 13 states unlikely to approve it but maybe you disagree.
For the reasons listed above, I think this 14th Amendment argument actually is a distraction from accomplishing what I think is our pressing common goal-getting control of our border. And, why I don’t appreciate Trump’s focus on it.
Sidenote: You mention the word loyalty. I want to address this separately. The reason jus soli has been the principle of common law since the downfall of the Roman Empire is jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent) was the principle of Rome which made Roman citizens occupiers everywhere they were in control. Monarchies principally changed to the principle of jus soli so “birth” was deemed automatic subjection to the monarchy. Democratic philosophy adopted jus soli because they saw jus sanguinis as fundamentally undemocratic under a principle of universal human dignity and being bound into the “social contract” of the democratic nation in which they were born.
As it applies to our nation, our Founding Fathers were very clear when we won the Revolutionary War. While their particular focus were British Loyalists, the principle was considered universal. If you are born here, the presumption of citizenship and loyalty is presumed. A claim of loyalty to another nation is de facto treason for anyone born here. It was an overt rejection of jus sanguinis.
Final comment: Another reason I’m frustrated by the 14th Amendment argument is it is a distraction from objective integration issues that actually are more fundamental in my mind which is related to objective loyalty.
I’m for a lot of accommodation with regard to Spanish language for immigrants as we used to do here in South Dakota for German and Scandinavian immigrants- accommodation toward transition/integration. What we are doing now with regard to actually encouraging maintenance of Spanish language is an effective creation of a new nation within our nation except this nation doesn’t even have the boundaries we had with reservations. It is at its core a greater threat to our nation than “anchor babies.”
P.S. Nothing I said above should be interpreted as not supporting getting control of our border by whatever means to accomplish the goal. I will though say I think a wall is both low tech and ultimately less effective than other options. In particular, I think the use of drones, expansion of border agents, and creation of a special Immigration Court where anyone caught will be detained in tent cities whereby the best choice for anyone detained is to self-deport and anyone convicted in this court is permanently deemed ineligible for legal immigration.
A wall gives too much “hope” of the “promised land” if they get past it. I want something that will catch anyone who gets here and creates significant permanent disincentives of trying.
“14th Amendment was in particular targeted to mean children born here where the parent was in one of two classes: (1) Invading armies or (2) children born of Diplomats.”
That’s incomplete. “Subject to the jurisdiction of” was meants and understood top be much broader t( by the framers of the Amendment)–it meant subject to the exclusive political allegiance to the US.
“As it applies to our nation, our Founding Fathers were very clear when we won the Revolutionary War. While their particular focus were British Loyalists, the principle was considered universal. If you are born here, the presumption of citizenship and loyalty is presumed”
Wholly and OBVIOUSLY INACCURATE. The Revolutionary Founders just fought & died for the precept that being BORN subject to the Crown meant lifelong allegiance to the Crown!!! They REJECTED birthright citizenship by engaging in a REVOLUTION!
“The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first act to restrict emigration to the US from nations other than nations at war with the US.”
The US had a treaty at the time of Ark that was EXPLICIT: that China and the US BOTH agreed (by treaty) that the offspring of Chinese immigrants (born in the US) would REMAIN SUBJECTS OF THE EMPEROR OF CHINA!
Try this primer:
http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v14n1/Graglia.pdf
Per Curiam,
Your first comment: Jurisdiction and allegiance are not the same thing. A child born in the US is subject to the authority (jurisdiction) of the United States. Period.
Your second comment: I have no idea what you are trying to say. The Revolutionary War is an act of rejection of British citizenship and British jurisdiction of the Crown over the Colonists. As a human, you are free to renounce your US citizenship if you choose. But, so long as you live here regardless of whether you accept your citizenship or not, you are still subject to the jurisdiction of the US unless you are here as an invading army or as a recognized diplomat.
Because I’m confused by your comment, I’ll just give you the history of “citizenship” from the time of the Continental Congress, Articles of Confederation and the adoption of the Constitution.
During the Continental Congress, any person residing in the respective States were deemed citizens, even those who held allegiance to the Crown. This confirms jus soli and didn’t incorporate a loyalty test. That said, Loyalists who took action against the Patriots were usually treated as “tried” under military law as enemy combatants and given pardons upon release. Only those who overtly pledged loyalty to the Revolution were considered traitors. The point is citizenship was fuzzy.
However, citizenship wasn’t fuzzy at the end of the War. Prior acts against the Patriot cause was treated more like the perpetrator was an enemy combatant and after cessation of the War as treason.
While operating under the Articles of Confederation (approved by Congress in 1777 and ratified by all the 13 former colonies in 1781), after the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, there were local efforts and in South Carolina to deny citizenship and property rights to British Loyalists (essentially both a loyalty test). The Confederation quickly quashed these efforts and said there are to be no consequence for being loyal to the Crown prior to cessation of the war except for certain war crimes against humanity. And, even then, they were to be tried as citizens of the new nation and not under laws of Treason. This confirms the principle of jus soli without regard to even current loyalty to the new nation.
At the founding of the Constitution, there were two types of citizens. Anybody who was in the nation at the signing of the Constitution (automatic naturalized citizen regardless of where they had prior citizenship) and those where were born in any of the former colonies or Several States (post Articles of Confederation) (natural born citizens). And from that date on, anyone born in the US was deemed a citizen of the United States (jus soli) unless they were a slave or born of a diplomat. The 14th Amendment extended citizenship to former slaves (children born to free blacks in the US had been granted citizenship since inception of the nation). All of the above confirms jus soli.
Bottom line: Since even before we were a nation (Continental Congress), there is virtually universal precedence for the principle of jus soli being the criteria for citizenship except for children born where a Treaty is in play (invading armies, diplomats, Indians).
“Your first comment: Jurisdiction and allegiance are not the same thing. A child born in the US is subject to the authority (jurisdiction) of the United States. Period.”
I never claimed that jurisdiction = allegiance. I pointed out that the framers of the 14th amendment meant and intended that “jurisdiction” included more than “subject to the laws”. That is and was clear. For example, while Indians were subject to many laws of the US, they were NOT citizens EVEN IF BORN ON US SOIL since their primary allegiances were to their tribes. Moreover, even IF an Indian absolutely renounced his tribal allegiances and membership, the SupCt found that US citizenship could NOT be be gained without the consent of the US. It really is INDISPUTABLE that the 14th’s “subject to the jurisdiction of” included more than just, “subject top the authority or laws of the US”. For example, the 1866 law that preceded the 14th included “and not subject to any foreign power”–the same men (mostly) who framed the 14th also wrote the 1866 legislation.
“The Revolutionary War is an act of rejection of British citizenship and British jurisdiction of the Crown over the Colonists.”
The American Revolution was, by its very nature, a rejection of the English notion that people of British descent were subjects of the British Crown merely by being born “under the jurisdiction” of the Crown (jus soli).
“here is virtually universal precedence for the principle of jus soli being the criteria for citizenship except for children born where a Treaty is in play (invading armies, diplomats, Indians).”
1. Simply untrue–in fact, outside of the aberration of the Ark decision & its progeny, it’s been just the opposite: a person CANNOT gain citizenship unilaterally by simply being born in the US without the consent of the US.
2. EVEN under a jus soli approach , it seem absolutely IRRATIONAL that ANY nation must grant citizenship to any person without the nation’s consent who in the nation in violation of the nation’s laws ! NO Latin phrase can overcome that objection!
3. NO US COURT has ever decided the question of the citizenship of the offspring of those here illegally. And that’s what Trump was referring to.
4. “(Supreme Court ruled 9-0 they are US citizens)” Simply never happened.
Per Curiam,
I’m not sure your mention of the Treaty with China helps your cause as it means that jus soli can transcend a treaty prohibiting naturalized citizens (not born citizens) and we have been operating under the precedent for 117 years.
But, thanks for giving me this “primer” as it explains that comment I couldn’t understand. Again, I’m not sure citing the dissenting minority with regard to “perpetual allegiance” in reference to a clause on “jurisdiction.” Especially since we allow the renouncement of American citizenship to those who choose to leave the US (except to avoid crimes committed as a citizen under US law).
ask per curiam for an opinion on cronyism. it might be jammer in disguise.
Enquirer, I appreciate this person has used a consistent pseudonym for this conversation. And I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the argument that part of the solution is to deny citizenship to babies born in the US. Its not going to happen short of a Constitutional Amendment and that isn’t going to happen in the foreseeable future (if ever) and it is an unproductive distraction away from solutions that can happen.
I appreciate this issue got Trump attention and support for his campaign. However, this is both neither the penultimate issue facing the nation nor is it sufficient to carry him to the nomination, must less victory in the general. Further, because rather than moving to other issues, raising the 14th Amendment issue will long-term limit his appeal beyond those already supporting him. In retrospect, we may recognize this might have been the issue that set his ceiling with regard to broadening his support.
i was just missing jammer’s input on a few topics and per curiam induced a little nostalgia. dont’ start taking me seriously.
Per Curiam:
INDIANS: Because of the Treaty with Tribes, reservations were considered sovereign territory for Indians only. Thus, an Indian born on the reservation was considered a citizen of that nation. In 1924, their birth on a reservation gave them dual citizenship.
REVOLUTIONARY WAR: Prior to the war, the British Crown granted citizenship to people born in the colonies. The war was an act of rejection of that citizenship. Just as you can renounce your US citizenship.
PRECEDENT OF JUS SOLI: Give me a single incident in US history where a person born in the US was not considered a natural born US citizen (except diplomats and Indians) which is jus soli.
IT BEING IRRATIONAL THE CHILD OF A PERSON HERE ILLEGALLY IS GRANTED CITIZENSHIP: Whether you find it irrational or not, since 1783, that has been the practice of the United States. Concurrently, there is a fundamental American democratic principle at play- a person is neither a subject of the Crown or a subject of his parents. Personhood is innate, endowed with certain inalienable rights endowed by their Creator. When you try to connect citizenship of a child to the sins of the parents, you deny the rights as being inalienable.
It is the argument connecting sins of parents to the rights of a child that I find most concerning. In the US, individuals are only held accountable for what they do. We don’t have a caste system granting privileges to some and denying benefits to others. We aren’t a feudal nation where rights are subject to the whim of a King or Lord. We treasure, bestow honor, and are committed to protect and preserve the dignity of each human without regard to anything but their personhood. I’m not angry with the child born here and neither will I support the denial of the child’s inalienable rights.
NO US COURT HAS EVER DECIDED THE QUESTION OF CITIZENSHIP OF THE OFFSPRING OF THOSE HERE ILLEGALLY: Maybe not directly (at least satisfactorily to you) but since citizenship has been granted upon birth since 1783 (cessation of War) and 1791 (ratification of Constitution) and every tangential question in this regard confirmed this, you have a lot of precedent to overcome. In the meantime while we are arguing about the 14th Amendment, we aren’t uniting behind solutions that are doable today. This morning from noted extreme “liberal” Charles Krauthammer: “Birthright citizenship is a symptom, not a cause. If you regain control of the border, the number of birthright babies fades to insignificance. The time and energy it would take to amend the Constitution are far more usefully deployed securing the border.”
“Thus, an Indian born on the reservation was considered a citizen of that nation. In 1924, their birth on a reservation gave them dual citizenship. ”
Simply wrong.
The US has NEVER recognized anything like “dual citizenship”. The Snyder Act did allow NAs to maintain “membership” in a tribe, but the US has NEVER recognized anything like “dual citizenship” for NAs or anyone else. OTHER countries or a NAs tribe may recognize what it believes is “dual citizenship” but not the US.
” Give me a single incident in US history where a person born in the US was not considered a natural born US citizen (except diplomats and Indians) which is jus soli. ”
Not only has it occurred, it’s enshrined in our laws:
8 USC 1481:
(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
…
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
“T BEING IRRATIONAL THE CHILD OF A PERSON HERE ILLEGALLY IS GRANTED CITIZENSHIP: Whether you find it irrational or not, since 1783, that has been the practice of the United States.’
No it has not!
From colonial times to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, immigration to the US was largely unregulated–THERE WAS NO LEGAL OR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION prior to 1882! It was basically, come as as you are, and if at some point you wanted to become NATURALIZED, there were procedures to do that. There was no “practice” of granting citizenship to the children of “illegals” BECAUSE THERE WERE NO “ILLEGALS”!!!!
“Maybe not directly (at least satisfactorily to you)”
No maybes about it. And not just to my satisfaction–to ANYONE’S satisfaction! And that’s what Trump is getting at.
In so many instances, you’re factually inaccurate. I beg you, go do the legal research before posting again.
“It is the argument connecting sins of parents to the rights of a child that I find most concerning.
NO ONE is suggesting that so-called anchor babies” be assigned the sin of their illegal parents. Stop with the over-the-top blather. It’s about CITIZENSHIP or something less or something temporary.
‘In the US, individuals are only held accountable for what they do”
Well ,that’s a nice sentiment but largely inaccurate. Sharpton, NAACP, Jessay Jaxson, and Barry Obama have all made highly rewarding careers out of assigning blame to certain racial groups for the sins of their fathers.
Indians: The US government recognizes Tribal citizenship while considering them US citizens. If you want to argue “membership” is something different, I’ll concede your point. Its semantics.
8 USC 1481: Huh? This is about how one loses their citizenship. Citizenship they held but taken away by THEIR ACTIONS, not those of their parents. Again,
Prior to 1882 and the Chinese Exclusions Act: OK, I’ll concede prior to 1924, an argument can be made since there were no illegals so the precedent may not apply (I don’t agree but for discussion I’ll consider it), give me a single instance after 1924 where citizenship was denied to a child born in the United States (except for children of diplomats).
Ruled not to your satisfaction: I’ll concede SCOTUS hasn’t ruled to your or Don Trump’s satisfaction. Just don’t say ANYONE as you only speak for yourself.
Sins of the mother: If my child gets citizenship rights because I’m here legally and another child does not because his mother is here illegally, what is the distinction? The sins of the mother. You can’t really argue with that reality.
Sharpton et. al.: Nice try to change the subject. Whether others are erroneous with an assertion people aren’t responsible for their actions because of some victim argument, it doesn’t change the reality that I’m not responsible for another’s wrong acts. Only my own.
P.S. I’m not sure I’d lecture about “legal research.” Your “best” argument comes form a minority dissenting opinion and erroneously mentioned how citizenship can be taken away when we are talking about how it is bestowed upon birth.
““best” argument comes form a minority dissenting opinion”
What “minority opinion”?
Before, you claimed that it was
” (Supreme Court ruled 9-0 they are US citizens)”!!!
One reason why I suggested more legal research for you.
And no, it’s not my ‘best” argument. My BASIC argument is that the SupCt has yet to hear or decide whether children of those here illegally are entitled to birthright citizenship.
How could you construe it otherwise???
“Sins of the mother: If my child gets citizenship rights because I’m here legally and another child does not because his mother is here illegally, what is the distinction? ”
Because the 14th Amendment MAKES THE DISTCINTION: “Subject to the jurisdiction of the US”.
If “birthright citizenship” is the law of the land, why aren’t ALL children born in or around Marty, SD automatically members/citizens of the Yankton Sioux tribe?