Donald Trump: I've got my birth certificate, where President Barack Obama's?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

And for national security reasons you don't believe that was done before Obama was elected President? President Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution, seems to me to allow someone to become President in violation of the Constitution would be a violation of that oath.

No. John Edwards is proof that a guy will run because of a big ego, no matter what skeletons in the closet.

At most, they all have a lawyer give them advice about their eligibility if it's in doubt at all.
 
If there was any doubt about Bush's eligibility to serve, I would be first in line demanding that he produce a birth certificate.

It's not like we just met, Shooter. If Bush raped and killed a three-year-old, you'd say she was dressed provocatively.

barfo
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
No. John Edwards is proof that a guy will run because of a big ego, no matter what skeletons in the closet.

At most, they all have a lawyer give them advice about their eligibility if it's in doubt at all.

I don't think he's referring to Obama knowing and doing it anyways. He's saying there's no way he would have been allowed to run, legally, without proving it.
 
No. John Edwards is proof that a guy will run because of a big ego, no matter what skeletons in the closet.

At most, they all have a lawyer give them advice about their eligibility if it's in doubt at all.

I'm not sure what you mean? What I'm saying that is that someone from the US government checked to see if Obama met the requirements to be President. There was far too much to gain and/or lose by not making sure that Obama is who he claimed to be.
 
No. John Edwards is proof that a guy will run because of a big ego, no matter what skeletons in the closet.

At most, they all have a lawyer give them advice about their eligibility if it's in doubt at all.

I think you missed his point. I think he was saying the government would check someone out prior to letting them become president.

barfo
 
And for national security reasons you don't believe that was done before Obama was elected President?

I don't know. If it is that easy, then this should all be a non-issue. Somebody should have a record that the necessary checks to uphold the constitution were done. Where can we check that?

President Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution, seems to me to allow someone to become President in violation of the Constitution would be a violation of that oath.

Wait, did this just somehow become Bush's fault? Wow, that was a stretch.
 
I don't think he's referring to Obama knowing and doing it anyways. He's saying there's no way he would have been allowed to run, legally, without proving it.

And also I'm saying they wouldn't have waited for Obama to prove it, they would have verified things on their own independently.
 
I don't know. If it is that easy, then this should all be a non-issue. Somebody should have a record that the necessary checks to uphold the constitution were done. Where can we check that?

I would guess it is in a file in the FBI's offices. I don't guess you or I have access to it, however.

barfo
 
I don't know. If it is that easy, then this should all be a non-issue. Somebody should have a record that the necessary checks to uphold the constitution were done. Where can we check that?

You know I'm not sure if anyone has done a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI and NSA about this. That would be a good place to start.




Wait, did this just somehow become Bush's fault? Wow, that was a stretch.

Huh? No, I'm saying that I believe Bush did his duty.
 
It is interesting to see the Obama supporters laugh off those who think that proof of the Constitution being upheld is important, yet they have no idea if it was actually done.
 
It is interesting to see the Obama supporters laugh off those who think that proof of the Constitution being upheld is important, yet they have no idea if it was actually done.

Nobody is saying it is not important. I think the Obama supporters are saying we have enough faith in our country's processes to understand that we wouldn't just let someone become president and then say, "Ok, now, let's see some ID". That seems a little ridiculous to me, that you could believe that they would allow him to run and be elected and serve without verifying he is actually eligible.
 
You know I'm not sure if anyone has done a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI and NSA about this. That would be a good place to start.

If the birthers haven't already thought of that they are even stupider than I thought. But I doubt it would succeed, because personal information is exempted from FOIA.

barfo
 
How about we start with whether or not they meet the requirements stated in the Constitution? That seems like a reasonable place to start.

I'm comfortable that Obama met Constitutional requirements. The certificate of live birth from Hawaii is enough for me. Anyone who isn't comfortable that he does can petition the courts and if the Supreme Court eventually finds otherwise, then I'll agree with those who say he doesn't.
 
I'm not sure what you mean? What I'm saying that is that someone from the US government checked to see if Obama met the requirements to be President. There was far too much to gain and/or lose by not making sure that Obama is who he claimed to be.

I've never heard of any govt. organization that vets candidates and approves them.

Seems quite contrary to the constitution.

The proper way to handle such things is to have someone sue and the supreme court ultimately decide.
 
God, you seem dense on this topic. None of the people you mention occupy the Oval Office--but if they did, they would definitely be expected to supply those records.

IMO, they should provide it just to be a candidate for the Presidency, much less actually winning.
 
Nobody is saying it is not important. I think the Obama supporters are saying we have enough faith in our country's processes to understand that we wouldn't just let someone become president and then say, "Ok, now, let's see some ID". That seems a little ridiculous to me, that you could believe that they would allow him to run and be elected and serve without verifying he is actually eligible.

Faith in our government? To which country are you referring? :tsktsk:
 
I said faith in the country's processes. Not the government. Meaning there's likely a process in place.
 
I've never heard of any govt. organization that vets candidates and approves them.

Seems quite contrary to the constitution.

The proper way to handle such things is to have someone sue and the supreme court ultimately decide.

You may not have heard of the organization but I'm willing to bet that some agency or department checks out who might be in charge of the most powerful country on this planet. We can't afford what would happen if they didn't do that. I'm willing to bet that we take great care that the office of the president can not be compromised. Could you imagine if a foreign power found proof that Obama wasn't born here? They could blackmail the chit out of him. I just have a hard time believing that someone somewhere don't take serious steps to prevent this.
 
You may not have heard of the organization but I'm willing to bet that some agency or department checks out who might be in charge of the most powerful country on this planet. We can't afford what would happen if they didn't do that. I'm willing to bet that we take great care that the office of the president can not be compromised. Could you imagine if a foreign power found proof that Obama wasn't born here? They could blackmail the chit out of him. I just have a hard time believing that someone somewhere don't take serious steps to prevent this.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread405486/pg1
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_the_President_need_a_background_check
http://caffinequeen.wordpress.com/2...ugh-background-checks-prior-to-taking-office/
 
You can't have a govt. freely elected by the people if the govt. has the power to decide who's an eligible candidate or who's not. As the first link mentions, there's no constitutional requirement for some organization to accept the president's qualifications.

As I already wrote, if there are doubts about a guy elected president, someone would sue and the courts would decide.
 
You can't have a govt. freely elected by the people if the govt. has the power to decide who's an eligible candidate or who's not. As the first link mentions, there's no constitutional requirement for some organization to accept the president's qualifications.

As I already wrote, if there are doubts about a guy elected president, someone would sue and the courts would decide.

Isn't the judiciary one of the three branches of government?

barfo
 
You can't have a govt. freely elected by the people if the govt. has the power to decide who's an eligible candidate or who's not. As the first link mentions, there's no constitutional requirement for some organization to accept the president's qualifications.

As I already wrote, if there are doubts about a guy elected president, someone would sue and the courts would decide.

Everything you linked is referring to background checks along the lines of an FBI background check, to look into past criminal behavior, links to shady characters, whatever.

Do you think that a 12 year old would be allowed to run and win by just saying, yeah, I'm 35, refusing to show a birth certificate, and then we'd have to wait until someone brought forth a lawsuit for them to be taken out of office?
 
Classic. You pick one item off the list and make fun of it, just for cheap laughs. Meanwhile, you ignore the larger issue at hand.

This is why you and other lefties can't be taken seriously. You're circling the wagons around Obama on an issue that you'd be attacking Bush for, if he were still in the Oval Office.

Late to the game..

But no, no one was "attacking" Bush for being born in the US. So....
 
And for national security reasons you don't believe that was done before Obama was elected President? President Bush took an oath to uphold the Constitution, seems to me to allow someone to become President in violation of the Constitution would be a violation of that oath.

If he wasn't a citizen, he wouldn't have run.

Serious question. Do people honestly think he wasn't born in Hawaii? Wouldn't it be really hard to cover up after all these years? For gods sake, we live in an age where politicians lied about far more important things and got exposed super easy.

It just seems like an argument to argue about, just to have something to argue about, and cause doubt in peoples minds that he's not a "real American" and must be a muslim spy.

Cause you know, 40 some odd years ago the Hawaiian paper was paid by someone who knew that many decades later some kid would become President and it was extremely important that the birth announcement was made in the paper.

You know, to keep the rouse realistic!!!

Good grief people, tune into sanity FM. What good would it have been for his mom to fake his "citizenship"? Did she ever revoke her own citizenship? What would he have benefited for all these years in lying about it?!

If he's not a citizen, he's done a great job of faking it.

Oh, I know, he's "ruining" the country (though you can only state vague accusations that really aren't solely his doing or even mostly done under his presidency OR actually what you state). he must be a secret muslim socialist commie.

If he is one (esp for "keeping us in those wars"), then so is George W Bush, Bill Clinton, G Bush and Ronald Reagan.
 
Isn't the judiciary one of the three branches of government?

barfo

They're the ones who decide cases like this. And AFTER THE FACT.

The candidates are vetted by the press and the opposing candidates, which is how it should be.

If some 12 year old claimed to be 35 and wouldn't produce identification during the campaign, the voters likely wouldn't vote for him.
 
They're the ones who decide cases like this. And AFTER THE FACT.

The candidates are vetted by the press and the opposing candidates, which is how it should be.

I think it is a little naive to think there aren't some big fat files in Washington on everyone who ever ran for President. It's also a little naive to think that if there was some incredible smoking gun in those files, that it wouldn't be leaked.

barfo
 
To those who think I only am interested in our current Commander-In-Chief, I would love to see a thorough background check with the results publicized of every candidate, no matter the party or the political viewpoint. The more information we know about these people, the better.

I think you were born before your time. Most likely, Bush's missing duty in the National Guard and Obama's missing kindergarten records are near the last of their kind. In the future, we'll not only have their written records, we'll have video of them starting from just before birth and covering bedwetting, school, first sexual encounters, juvenile delinquency, etc. We'll know when they went to the mall and what they bought, because the cameras will have caught it all. First cigarette behind the school? On youtube. Cheating on college math test? On youtube. Masturbating to a self-portrait? On youtube.

Will this improve the quality of our public servants? I think it won't.

barfo
 
Another Senator asks, "What's Obama hiding?"

"I'm not a 'birther,'" Hawaii State Sen. Sam Slom told Jeff Katz of WXKS Radio in Boston, "and I followed this from the very beginning. At first I followed it with amusement, and then I got really concerned about it, because the question was if it was not just the birth certificate, but other records as well – school records, academic records, work records – why would anyone spend millions of dollars in legal fees, particularly someone in public office, particularly someone in the highest public office, to not make that information public?"

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=283713#ixzz1Il6nelEV
 
Trump is 2nd in the latest new Hampshire polls, just a few points
Behind Romney.

Amazing.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top