• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Republican debate with moderator Donald Trump

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Craig234 said:
This is an embarrassment to the Republicans candidates and party.

To their credit, many Republican leaders have said so and encouraged the candidates to boycott it.

Huntsman did the best, criticizing the event. Paul less so, and Romney did the right thing not going but pandered to Donald Trump making an excuse.

What a disgrace to our presidential elections this is. Any candidate who attends should be ashamed and punished by voters.

That means Newt Gingrich, one of the two who have accepted the invitation.

It's bad enough they already had the Heritage debate where reportedly all the questioners were the worst of the Republican party.

People like David Addington and Ed Meese and Paul Wolfowitz.

People who had terrible policies.

To me, that was even worse than Trump.
Click to expand...

Paul less so . According to who ? You or mainsream media . I can get ya a utube clip if thats what it takes.
 
Nemesis 1 said:
Paul less so . According to who ? You or mainsream media . I can get ya a utube clip if thats what it takes.
Click to expand...

Jon Huntsman made a strong, good statement against the degradation of the election by Donald Trump.

Ron Paul made his reason clear, but was not as strong in what he said as Huntsman.

Romney pretended he had no issue with Trump - typical Romney lying.
 
cybrsage said:
Correct, which is why I also included the In Wedlock portion.

Thus, I am still correct.
Click to expand...

Then read what you posted.

For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Click to expand...

Obama's mother does not meet this requirement hence the need for both parents to be citizens for Obama to be an NBC if he were to have been born outside the US.
 
I would say the main purpose of this debate is so that Donald Trump can further inflate his already massive ego. I'd be surprised if he doesn't moderate in a way that allows him to get a lot of camera time. Or maybe he's going to help a favorite during the debate and see if he can get a spot as a VP nom.

Also for those of you suggesting that the Republican candidates can't get fair moderation anywhere else, I'd like to remind you there have been debates moderated by conservatives. Additionally, Newt "librul media" Gingrich himself was actually quite complimentary toward Wolf Blitzer's moderation of the debate hosted on CNN.

I have nothing against debates hosted by conservatives. I simply think Trump is a buffoon.
 
xBiffx said:
Then read what you posted.



Obama's mother does not meet this requirement hence the need for both parents to be citizens for Obama to be an NBC if he were to have been born outside the US.
Click to expand...

Of course she does. While it is possible to file a case based on Obama being born when she was only 18, and therefor 5 years had not passed, the case would be lost. She lived 100% of her life in the US after she turned 14. The purpose of the law is to prevent there from being US Citizens whose parents and grandparents never lived in the US.

The SCOTUS would not even hear the case, as the lower courts would make the logical ruling.

Sorry to disappoint you.
 
xBiffx said:
Again, having no clue of the definition of troll. Don't you have some Walker bashing to get back to already?
Click to expand...

He is the forum jester, everything he does it to make himself look foolish so people laugh at him. He is very good at it too...I smile every time I read one of his posts. Think about it, no one can be as foolish as he is without doing it on purpose. 🙂
 
cybrsage said:
Of course she does. While it is possible to file a case based on Obama being born when she was only 18, and therefor 5 years had not passed, the case would be lost. She lived 100% of her life in the US after she turned 14. The purpose of the law is to prevent there from being US Citizens whose parents and grandparents never lived in the US.

The SCOTUS would not even hear the case, as the lower courts would make the logical ruling.

Sorry to disappoint you.
Click to expand...

Guess we can agree to disagree then. Courts would have to follow laws as written, regardless of how non-logical they might seem. This was the reason why the law was updated in the 80's. Applying the new law retroactively would not be legal, hence all the timelines in the current law.
 
cybrsage said:
He is the forum jester, everything he does it to make himself look foolish so people laugh at him. He is very good at it too...I smile every time I read one of his posts. Think about it, no one can be as foolish as he is without doing it on purpose. 🙂
Click to expand...

We can agree to agree on this one.
 
Trump: Do you believe the long form birth certificate produced by Obama was a forgery?

Gingrich: Well, um, I think there are more important issues than that. For example...

Trump: Newt, you're fired!
 
xBiffx said:
Guess we can agree to disagree then. Courts would have to follow laws as written, regardless of how non-logical they might seem. This was the reason why the law was updated in the 80's. Applying the new law retroactively would not be legal, hence all the timelines in the current law.
Click to expand...

Laws can be applied retroactively, provided they give greater benefit to those affected. The citizenship law is often written to expressly say this. I find it odd...it surprised me when I learned about it.

I suspect the court would be forced to decide between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. In this case, they would be deciding between requiringthe possible and the impossible. I have no doubt they would rule for the possible and not rule to require the impossible.

Who knows, it did not make it that far anyway. All theoretical at this point. No point in not agreeing to disagree. 🙂
 
HomerJS said:
Birtherism = Racism
Click to expand...

thefuckisthis4.gif
 
This so called "debate" ( if it really happens) is sponsored by Spewsmax. Trump said if he didn't like the answers given by the candidates, he would consider running after his contract is up next june or july. Not this crap again.
 
soundforbjt said:
This so called "debate" ( if it really happens) is sponsored by Spewsmax. Trump said if he didn't like the answers given by the candidates, he would consider running after his contract is up next june or july. Not this crap again.
Click to expand...

One could probably run a small city with the power of his Ego.

It's actually an insult to the american public that the republican party has so little respect for the political process of electing a president.
 
hal2kilo said:
One could probably run a small city with the power of his Ego.

It's actually an insult to the american public that the republican party has so little respect for the political process of electing a president.
Click to expand...

Again, where is the republican party in this debate? Trump != republican party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top