3
3
0
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Donald Trump
Politics Donald Trump
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 31
2
2
0
The issue here seems to be distinguishing between qualified and capable. Anyone that meets the Constitutional requirements is qualified. Whether that same person is either capable or competent is another story entirely.
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Not even remotely qualified, unless you expect the USA to declare bankruptcy and sue China for our investment plus damages to our reputation.
2
2
0
He is vastly more qualified than the current president we have when he entered office. He certainly meets all of the Constitutional requirements for the office.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Obama was a one term Senator from Illinois when he was elected. He had never written a single piece of legislation. He had missed most votes or voted present. He never ran a business, made a profit, met a budget etc.
Trump, love him or hate him has negotiated many deals, he knows how to manage a budget and now to make money. He has loads of experience in trade related issues which we largely suck at. He has lived and made the American dream work. He knows how to create jobs and make things happen. I am not saying he is a perfect candidate but compared to Obama in 08 his is a million times more experienced and qualified.
That
Trump, love him or hate him has negotiated many deals, he knows how to manage a budget and now to make money. He has loads of experience in trade related issues which we largely suck at. He has lived and made the American dream work. He knows how to create jobs and make things happen. I am not saying he is a perfect candidate but compared to Obama in 08 his is a million times more experienced and qualified.
That
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
"Obama was a one term Senator from Illinois when he was elected." - So he'd been elected to an office before, and served in government before, unlike Mr. Trump.
The Donald can manage a budget? Since when? His own partners vote him off just about any board he's ever looked at, and he makes money by declaring bankruptcy, refusing to repay loans, and suing anybody who talks about his awful business practices.
The Donald can manage a budget? Since when? His own partners vote him off just about any board he's ever looked at, and he makes money by declaring bankruptcy, refusing to repay loans, and suing anybody who talks about his awful business practices.
Capt Jeff S.
Maybe you should stick to flying LTJG James Jones. Hopefully you know more about that than politics. You should spend as much time researching the myriad of awful practices your Cmdr-in-Chief is guilty of... like going his entire first term without passing a budget. Guess if you don't pass a budget, you can't be guilty of mismanaging what doesn't exist! Say, how much has our National Debt gone up? ???
Oh, and about getting things done... read on.
http://articles.philly.com/1986-11-01/news/26094092_1_ice-rink-donald-trump-trump-time
Oh, and about getting things done... read on.
http://articles.philly.com/1986-11-01/news/26094092_1_ice-rink-donald-trump-trump-time
Faster And Cheaper, Trump Finishes N.y.c. Ice Rink
Score one for the Trumpster.Back in June, when the city's bungled, six-year effort to renovate the Wollman Ice-Skating Rink in Central Park was $12 million over budget with no end in sight,...
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Don't know sir. I wish I could speed up my ETS date! So many things I want to say!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
1
1
0
Well, I would sooner have someone who told me I was a SOB than to have some tell I am great and tell everyone else I am an SOB.
And then call me a liar when I confronted the issue.
And then call me a liar when I confronted the issue.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Is he a natural born U.S. citizen? As far as I know that is the only qualification under our Constitution.
(1)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
Speaking of Natural Born, neither Obama, Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio do not pass the test of Natural Born. IF you take the time to read this, it will be plainly evident why.
The term Natural born Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, with these words, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. [ << Note that Vattel is using PLURAL for both parents AND citizens.*] As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
"Please note that the correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence. He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel's use of the word "natives" in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here in the original French if you have any doubts. Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do. Vattel makes it quite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply born in a country, but of natural born citizens, those born in the country of two citizens of the country. Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate."
-------------------------------------------------
Our Founding Fathers referenced Vattel many times when they drafted the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, etc. all wrote about the requirement that our President being Natural Born and all were familiar with Vattel's work.
For brevity's sake, I'll give one reference and that is from Benjamin Franklin, who on Dec. 8th 1775 wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, stating: “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”
The definition of Natural Born was so commonly understood that they clearly felt no reason to explain the obvious. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to interpret what Vattel wrote. It's very unambiguous.
* When Vattel wrote, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." he used the plural form as he addressed parents AND citizens. Thus, BOTH parents must be U.S. citizens to fit Vattel's definition of Natural Born! This distinguishes those who are Natural Born from anchor babies of foreign parents (such as Marco Rubio), naturalized citizens, and those who get their citizenship through one parent and that may have dual citizenship through their other parent (such as Ted Cruz and Obama). If you ever had dual citizenship, you are NOT Natural Born.
For a more detailed discussion and more examples of Founding Fathers that referenced Vattel in their writings, go to http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html
The term Natural born Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, with these words, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. [ << Note that Vattel is using PLURAL for both parents AND citizens.*] As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
"Please note that the correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence. He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel's use of the word "natives" in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here in the original French if you have any doubts. Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do. Vattel makes it quite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply born in a country, but of natural born citizens, those born in the country of two citizens of the country. Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate."
-------------------------------------------------
Our Founding Fathers referenced Vattel many times when they drafted the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, etc. all wrote about the requirement that our President being Natural Born and all were familiar with Vattel's work.
For brevity's sake, I'll give one reference and that is from Benjamin Franklin, who on Dec. 8th 1775 wrote to Vattel’s editor, C.G.F. Dumas, stating: “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting. Accordingly, that copy which I kept has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author.”
The definition of Natural Born was so commonly understood that they clearly felt no reason to explain the obvious. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to interpret what Vattel wrote. It's very unambiguous.
* When Vattel wrote, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." he used the plural form as he addressed parents AND citizens. Thus, BOTH parents must be U.S. citizens to fit Vattel's definition of Natural Born! This distinguishes those who are Natural Born from anchor babies of foreign parents (such as Marco Rubio), naturalized citizens, and those who get their citizenship through one parent and that may have dual citizenship through their other parent (such as Ted Cruz and Obama). If you ever had dual citizenship, you are NOT Natural Born.
For a more detailed discussion and more examples of Founding Fathers that referenced Vattel in their writings, go to http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html
Vattel’s Influence on the term Natural Born Citizen
What is a natural born citizen? Where did the framers come up with this term? Where was it used before? So many questions, and the answers are right there if anyone wishes to search out the truth.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
So sir, you're quoting a guy about native born American citizens from a guy who was born is Switzerland? I know one thing that stinks to high heaven and that is no one ever questioned Mr. Trump about his citizenship. No one asked about his birth certificate. Oh way, he is white, so he must have been born in America. Don't mean to speak ill of my Commander in Chief, but this is too much for me to stay quiet.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
SGT (Join to see) - No one asked about Trump's birth certificate because Trump, as well as his father, were U.S. public figures for decades and it was well known that Trump was born in the U.S. Nothing was known about Obama's background before he entered politics. And what was found out about Obama's background led to more questions that have not been answered. It is known that Obama's mother became pregnant with Obama while living with Obama's foreign father outside the U.S. It has been proven and known for some time that Obama's birth certificate is a forgery. It is known that Obama sought and obtained foreign student aid while in college here in the U.S. Promotional material for Obama's book, stated he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. And now that Obama is no longer President, former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities. What stinks to high heaven is that Obama was most likely never qualified to be President and many public officials helped cover it up. This has nothing to do with being white or not.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Donald used eminent domain abuse to get started in business, used other people's money, built a casino to siphon other people's money and exploit capitalism, used nothing down real estate seminars and courses to teach others how to get rich from other people's money , then supposedly has a plan on how to create real jobs, and to fix our countries economy, yet our current economy is from people leading our nations leaders to use other people's money to finance even our nations economy. He definitely has been bankrupt and understands what debt is , yet isn't his way of getting out of debt , using other peoples money. I don't know that I trust what his strategies have added up to in his private success, if it would really add up to knowing how to manage our nations success. He can hire and fire for entertainment, but what real government science does he know, how will he know himself who to hire and fire, he will be relying on other people and that means people will have power to determine his administrations success. If he don't know but wants everyone else to know for him. I think he would try and make us all live like our whole country is for him and few wealthy people backing him. He is going to want a few people to create jobs, he will abuse his powers to help a few profit and hand off all the responsibilities to his supporters , kind of like amway and the network marketing scams, a few people will be cashing in but at the end of the term I think it will just be a few merchants who are helped out. We need a real economy. We need some businesses that aid others in creating their businesses who are not super wealthy or just middle class, we need high quality small manufacturers who pay decent wages, we need real estate nipped in the bud so that the housing costs don't sky rocket for a few investors to get rich and cash in on the wages of the working class, we need security in our spending, for families to stay together and build capital in their families and a strong family infrastructure, which is hard to imagine now because of sex drugs and rock and roll and the subversion of our nations culture.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
SPC Andrew Griffin
The Donald is absolutely qualified. Yeah he lost some cool points when he attacked CAPT McCain's war record, and he's not even my #1 choice (probably my #3 choice) but his business record speaks for itself. If anybody can lessen our deficit, even erase it, it's this man.
The Donald is absolutely qualified. Yeah he lost some cool points when he attacked CAPT McCain's war record, and he's not even my #1 choice (probably my #3 choice) but his business record speaks for itself. If anybody can lessen our deficit, even erase it, it's this man.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google