Ramaswamy and Soros Family

[WT_Foxtrot]

Don't put words in my mouth. And try to understand hyperbole.

Trump, Carson - no.

Ramaswamy shows me very little that would make me vote for him. And things that concern me. But go ahead and vote for him solely because he has never held office (turnabout is fair play).

I've already said I don't know who I'm going to vote for, but he interests me and is in the mix of four, much like Trump did in his initial run. Although I did not vote for Trump in the primary. But Trump turned out to be a great POTUS despite your requirement of having held office, which is absolutely ridiculous. I have an open mind and look to other factors than how long they've been sucking at the public teat like you do.

Maybe we should look to, say, a former director of the CIA to run? There's a swamp rat for ya'. Ooops.....that already happened. And it was a disaster, as was his son. And his other son would have been a disaster too had the electorate not wised up after the first two.

 

[wiredgeorge]

I began to understand Vivek when in an interview he was asked if he believe Jesus was the son of God. He replied he believed Jesus was one of the sons of God. Not sure his comments are trying to be middle of the road but a friend once told me if you are not on one side or the other and are middle of the road you will just end up getting run over.

 

[Catherine1]

I made a bunch of typos the other day in SEVERAL of my replies to this thread.

Apologies to the forum.

I meant to type LESSER of the evils not lessor.

Plus UNPATRIOTIC Patriot Act, etc.

Thank you.

Old Lady Cate

 

[Catherine1]

I do not know who I will vote for but it will NOT be for BIDEN or TRUMP!

My husband and I were NOT for Trump or Hill in 2016. WE DETEST the Clintons! He did vote for Trump in 2020 but he wanted someone else.

I was NOT for Trump or Biden in 2020.

IT will NOT be for any OBAMA person or TIED to him, NOT for any BUSH OR VP DICK - NO BID CONTRACT, etc. person or any person TIED to them, NOT for any GRIFTER TIED to ALL of them and others in or out of power now, NOT for any CLINTON PERSON or their THIEF - lying relatives/buddies, NOT for any person tied to NULAND, NULAND'S HUSBAND = KAGAN, THE ENTIRE KAGAN FAMILY, BLINKEN, etc. all tied to UKRAINE and the REPUBLICAN and DEMOCRAT LIES and MONEY LAUNDERING and the BIDEN FAMILY'S money laundering, TONS of other crimes over the years and DEATHS - INJURIES for that BS WAR!

IT will NOT be for ANY L or R NEO CON warmonger, NOT for any whoremonger, NOT for a liar, NOT for a thief, GRIFTER, NOT for a GUN GRABBER in ANY PARTY, NOT for any PNAC LOVER IN THE R OR D PARTY INCLUDING HARRIS, PENCE, HALEY, BIDEN, TRUMP, CHRISTIE, etc.

THE media and the POWERS THAT BE are going to promote Donald Trump Jr.'s LIVE IN GIRL FRIEND's EX HUSBAND. (EVEN BEFORE THEY GOT 'ENGAGED' - they were shacking up.) That woman with her ugly - plastered ON makeup and BIG MOUTH was MARRIED TO THE PRESENT GOVERNOR OF CA = old NEWSOM.

She/KG needs to get a haircut, shampoo her hair, body and wash her face MANY TIMES. LOL Put on light makeup if she is INTO THAT and not wear clothes that are too tight on her. I CONSIDER HER ANOTHER GRIFTER in her OWN way. NO offense to her FANS here! I think that she even got paid a LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY ($60,000.? CRS now for sure.) for speaking 2 minutes at the JANUARY 6TH ROYAL EFF UP when all of them were in and out of the spotlight.

SHE HAS BEEN ON THE PAYROLL for some time anyway.

Wait and see when it comes to ANTI GUN, ANTI LIBERTY, PRO CRIMINAL, PRO ILLEGAL ALIEN, ETC. NEWSOM in the D party! UGH.

They most likely will try to knock off RFK Jr. too. They = Ds and Rs in power who hate him for some of the 'truth' that he speaks about. That does NOT mean that I would vote for him but he was and is right about some matters with TRUMP'S and FAUCI'S BS KILLER SHOTS aka OPERATION WARP SPEED and other shots with side effects plus about ALL OF THE SHUT DOWNS and tons more.

Kari Lake spent weeks or months (?) at Trump's place down in FL = actual news. What the heck was THAT all about?!

The SD female governor has been ALLEGED to have had a fling for a YEAR or so now with her campaign buddy - OLD CORY L.

I did read Cory's book and tons of pro and con Trump books just as I have with MANY other people in power - R and L. And not just recently or in the last 10 years!

SHE - Noem just endorsed Trump and the R party in SD and in other circles have been trying to cover it all up. Her husband moved OUT of the Governor's house from what I have read. Noem has been busy more OUT of state than in state and some of the people who ELECTED HER are not too happy about that fact!

The 2 trashy R ladies with BIG MOUTHS are NOW divorced or in the middle of them since they got to the DISTRICT of CRIMINALS are getting into trouble with their own reputations and poor behavior in PUBLIC and not just BEHIND closed doors.

Apparently the OLD standards of OLD FASHIONED conservative women and actual good manners - behavior must not count to some people because they themselves keep on VOTING for and PROMOTING whoremongers, liars, thieves, being GRIFTERS themselves and hiring (?!?) their relatives in office once they get elected, warmongers, etc.

AS far as I am concerned the R party can't call the kettle this or that because MANY OF THEM are just as SLEAZY and compromised for BLACKMAIL or not as the D party!

And people WONDER WHY President Z (SPIT!) aka AGENT Z has all of those houses and MONEY and WHY the agencies never let out ALL of the information on EPSTEIN who worked for several agencies and ALL of those agencies AND even JP MORGAN CHASE knew about JE's BLACKMAIL and big money.

Like all of these former and present politicians just SAVED UP their money on a .gov salary, a life long .gov career, TONS of bennies in and OUT of office, the Golden Parachute, get hired by LOBBYING FIRMS.

Throw in the WITCH PELOSI and MITCH and tons more out there.

THOSE OLD PEOPLE and I can SAY this even as an old lady of 73 years old should have their @@@ES KICKED OUT OF OFFICE, a HUGE INVESTIGATION of their money trail - inside trades and with BIDEN'S OWN MONEY LAUNDERING, etc.

OLD NANCY needs to get OUT with OLD MITCH and OLD DIANE F. THROW in a bunch more!

I do NOT agree with N Haley in many things WAR WISE and with many MONEY ISSUES - she is NO FISCAL CONSERVATIVE or a REAL CONSERVATIVE TO BEGIN WITH but she was correct about those OLD POLS and more. I do not have her EXACT QUOTE in front of me now.

Old Lady Cate

Typos!

 

[guntrust]

Cruz was born on Canadian soil. Vivek wasn’t.

Birthplace is irrelevant under jus sanguinis. NBC is through the father only.

A lot of conservatives agree on this, because they know the whole point of NBC is allegiance and you can only have one nation. Without support from this block, the candidate is doomed at the polls regardless whether SCOTUS speaks on the issue.

 

[Havok1]

Birthplace is irrelevant under jus sanguinis. NBC is through the father only.

A lot of conservatives agree on this, because they know the whole point of NBC is allegiance and you can only have one nation. Without support from this block, the candidate is doomed at the polls regardless whether SCOTUS speaks on the issue.

birthplace was pretty relevant in US v Wong Kim Ark. what you say “conservatives” agree on doesn’t mean any more than some bernie supporter trying to provide whatever made up definition they like best and expecting me to believe it because “liberals agree” on it.

 

[guntrust]

birthplace was pretty relevant in US v Wong Kim Ark. what you say “conservatives” agree on doesn’t mean any more than some bernie supporter trying to provide whatever made up definition they like best and expecting me to believe it because “liberals agree” on it.

I'm sorry i didn't realize Wong Kim Ark was running for President. Thought that was just a 14A case, not Article II. Which party nominated Wong and how did he do in the election?

Anyway, i was not saying all conservatives agree with me. For example, I argued back and forth with Dr Jerome Corsi as he and many others believe that both parents must have been US citizens at the time of birth, based on an immigration law passed shortly after the Constitution was adopted. My view is that it must be through one parent only because the whole idea of limiting eligibility to "natural born citizen" is to guarantee allegiance to one country and it is based on the natural law concept that every individual is NBC of one and only one country. "Both parents" was fine in 1791 when wife's citizenship followed the husband's, but that changed in the 1920's and following that rule now would mean some would not be NBC of ANY country. Allowing NBC to pass through either parent would mean some would be NBC of more than one country. No doubt the way society is going, this could get even more ridiculous. Traditionally, outside the British commonwealth (where jus soli was used to extend rule over subjects), national constitutions passed citizenship through the father. For example, Philippines until recently.

Obviously, lots of disagreement on this question. And as i pointed out earlier in this thread, it's not likely SCOTUS will ever rule on this in a case on point (i think i remember a Wong running for something), but the good news is that the People get to rule on it every four years, and that means that the 30% or so of us conservatives who more or less agree on the definition of NBC and were able to doom Cruz' run for president (though we would support him for any position in the other two branches), will also doom any other non-NBC candidate.

So why bother? Instead, support a candidate with broader support, at least on the basic question of eligibility.

PS the RINO establishment knows all this, that's why they keep trotting these non-NBC candidates out.

 

[Havok1]

I'm sorry i didn't realize Wong Kim Ark was running for President. Thought that was just a 14A case, not Article II. Which party nominated Wong and how did he do in the election?

Anyway, i was not saying all conservatives agree with me. For example, I argued back and forth with Dr Jerome Corsi as he and many others believe that both parents must have been US citizens at the time of birth, based on an immigration law passed shortly after the Constitution was adopted. My view is that it must be through one parent only because the whole idea of limiting eligibility to "natural born citizen" is to guarantee allegiance to one country and it is based on the natural law concept that every individual is NBC of one and only one country. "Both parents" was fine in 1791 when wife's citizenship followed the husband's, but that changed in the 1920's and following that rule now would mean some would not be NBC of ANY country. Allowing NBC to pass through either parent would mean some would be NBC of more than one country. No doubt the way society is going, this could get even more ridiculous. Traditionally, outside the British commonwealth (where jus soli was used to extend rule over subjects), national constitutions passed citizenship through the father. For example, Philippines until recently.

Obviously, lots of disagreement on this question. And as i pointed out earlier in this thread, it's not likely SCOTUS will ever rule on this in a case on point (i think i remember a Wong running for something), but the good news is that the People get to rule on it every four years, and that means that the 30% or so of us conservatives who more or less agree on the definition of NBC and were able to doom Cruz' run for president (though we would support him for any position in the other two branches), will also doom any other non-NBC candidate.

So why bother? Instead, support a candidate with broader support, at least on the basic question of eligibility.

PS the RINO establishment knows all this, that's why they keep trotting these non-NBC candidates out.

It doesn’t matter if he was running for President or not. Citizenship status is what it is regardless of whether someone runs for president and that is what was ruled on. If he were elected he wouldn’t be the first President to have an immigrant father. You don’t have to like him, but don’t make up nonexistent criteria.