Talk:Ted Cruz

Quality of Content

This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a campaign ad. Worse, in fact, it's a list of accomplishments and endorsements with some flavor text about his family, and an extensive description of his father's life in Cuba under the section headed "Personal Life". I don't really know what to do with this article, to be honest, but it seems as though this is an inappropriate use of a medium designed to minimize implicit bias. Perhaps my thought on this is wrong, but it seems as that at the VERY least the article needs some balancing. 98.249.0.113 (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Texas Tribune has a short, well-done biography of Cruz. Perhaps a pointer to that profile if it can't be improved on here? http://www.texastribune.org/directory/ted-cruz/#ui-tabs-1 Edarrell (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The article describes the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case as "his victory." Puffery. The Wikipedia page discussing that litigation, which includes a lot of information about the players involved in the lawsuit does not mention Cruz's name. 173.79.119.235 (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed all claims (that I saw) that cite Cruz's website and campaign FB page for proof. This isn't allowed on WP per WP:Sources. Revmqo (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Canadian Citizenship

Today's NYT article which starts on page A18 states he was born in Canada. That he is currently a Texas politician suggests that he is also American. The article also states that his father fought against Batista. Please someone dig up whther his father was also Canadian or is merely Cuban-American and had his son born in Canada merely to make his son Canadian? 17:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.70.163 (talk)

No one needs to dig up anything. The article clearly states that he was born in Calgary while his parents were there on business, and that his father is Cuban American. Arbor8 (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that because his mom was an American at the time of Ted's birth, he would be a citizen at birth. However there has not been any national discussion of Cruz and the presidency yet. All that's been with Rubio who was born in America. I guess we should say that Cruz is a dual Canadian and American citizen. He hasn't renounced his Canadian citizenship ... yet. Lingust (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, we "should not say that Cruz is a dual Canadian and American citizen." That would be your opinion. Do you have a reliable source to support your probably incorrect opinion? Canada is not the U.S., in case you have not noticed, and they do not have the same laws. They do NOT give automatic citizenship to someone just because they are born in Canada. They do give automatic citizenship to a child born in Canada who has at least one parent who is a Canadian citizen. Neither of Cruz's parents were Canadian citizens. Please do not put your opinion in the article. I removed your opinion filled edit from a few minutes ago. Please only edit the article with facts that are supported by reliable sources.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Senator Cruz was born a citizen of both Canada and the United States. You don't know what you're talking about. See Canadian Citizenship Act 1946, Jus soli. I don't know whether Cruz is presently a citizen of Canada. -197.136.42.3 (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a question not an argument: Is Cruz barred from becoming President by virtue of his birthplace? Either way it is probably worth mentioning in the article. Silent Billy (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No, he is not barred from becoming President in any way.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

@revmqo is correct. You (ExclusiveAgent) are full of BS! You clearly haven't followed the thread. And based on your history of posts, it is entirely fair to say that you bully other editors! Time to get a life! 198.228.228.43 (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The New Yorker website carries an article "The Party Next Time" (dated 19 November 2012) which says He might even run for President in 2016. Though he was born in Canada, he informed me that he was qualified to serve. “The Constitution requires that one be a natural-born citizen,” he said, “and my mother was a U.S. citizen when I was born. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/11/19/121119fa_fact_lizza#ixzz2C3fctYSY

That would likely need to be litigated. It is far from obvious that that statement is true. If it were, then there would have been ZERO controversy over Obama/Kenya since his mother was a U.S. citizen. Silicon retina (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No and No. Neither Cruz or Obama are disqualified from running for President--assuming that Obama was born outside of the U.S. Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen, which means even if Obama was born in Kenya (which did not happen, he was born in Hawaii, not Kenya) then Obama would still be eligible as a natural U.S. Citizen, just like Cruz. See: Law Professor Eugene Volokh on Natural-Born Citizen Law.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That link is shit, Agent. It's Volokh's clarification of "a conversation" with the Chicago Tribune regarding Ann Dunham's age at the time of President Obama's birth and how that might be applied to 8 U.S.C. § 1401(g) if Obama had been born outside of the United States. I guess you could have muddled it more by linking to a blog archive that linked out to, what was at the time you offered it, some guy's dating and relationship blog. Oh, that's what you did ("You 404’d it. Gnarly, dude."). I think you meant to link Rumor calls Obama's birth certificate fake. "Any person born in the U.S. automatically is a 'natural born citizen,' said University of California Los Angeles law professor Eugene Volokh. . . . Even if a person is born outside the United States, courts have ruled any child born to at least one U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen, Volokh said. Stanley Ann Dunham would have counted even if Obama's Kenyan father did not." Ukranian SSR-native Volokh elides the question of "natural-born citizen" in the latter part of that quote.--75.111.78.220 (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear 75.111.78.220: Your comments above make no sense. I don't even know how to respond to such nonsense. Obama was eligible to serve as POTUS and, of course, is and all of the legal challenges to his service have gone no where--except in the mind's demented individuals. McCain was eligible to serve as POTUS and, of course, got the Republican nomination and there were zero effective legal challenges. And Cruz is eligible to serve, but he has not even stated that he is even planning on running so this debate is premature. However, if there was some truth of the rumor of him running then it is clear by reviewing the only definitive article written on the exact subject of Cruz's eligibility (not Obama's, not McCain's, not George Romney's, but Ted Cruz's eligibility) that Cruz is eligible. I wouldn't mind having a discussion with you about that subject, but what you provided above is mere unexplainable junk.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There hasn't been a legal challenge for Cruz yet, since no one has standing to file. Also, there has been no definitive ruling to define what "natural born citizen" means. You seem to think this issue is already resolved, but it is far from resolved. Only time, and in this case a lawsuit filed by someone with standing, will put this issue to rest. Making unsupportable claims, which anything definitive in either extreme, at this point is not only unwarranted but is also absurd. Revmqo (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your comments above. Thank you for seeing my point exactly. I agree that you probably should not make definitive statements because the definitive statements that you have made in the past are absurd, for example, you stated previously, "In any event, there would clearly be grounds to file lawsuits which would have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, and this would likely be an impassable hurdle for a candidate." That statement is, to quote you directly, absurd. Anyone can file lawsuits, but as we have seen on this issue, over decades, that most courts, no matter where they are in the system, treat the issue as a "political issue" and just look for reasons to dismiss the challenges for "lack of standing" and other not on-point rationales, just like they did in the McCain challenges and the Obama challenges. No, your statement is clearly absurd because you don't know that any challenge would go all the way to the Supreme Court. There is absolutely no solid court case evidence to support that absurd wild speculation on your part, but you said it anyway, now that is the wild speculation for you. As a matter of fact, the few cases that we do have over the years indicate just the opposite of what you absurdly, wildly speculated, that most courts dismiss the eligibility challenges using collateral issues and never speaking directly to what is or isn't a "natural born citizen". There is zero support for your absurd wild speculation. But that did not stop you. I won't even waste time on your patently absurd, wild speculation that the lawsuits would be "impassable" because, once again, you only provided your own personal opinion. There is zero case support for such a conclusion. Ah, if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops.... I forgot you were off your rocker. Sorry to agitate you again. Revmqo (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Dang, dude. You proved my point again. First you express wild, absurd speculation (which by definition has no reliable support or sources) and then vandalize my talk page (without providing any reliable sources for your personal opinions), and finally you just flat our engage in a personal attack like you did here because, wait for it, you don't have anything to support your crazy opinions, not facts, just your incorrect personal opinions. Way to prove me right again!!! Thank you.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, clearly you never read any of my posts. From the beginning you confused me with an IP editor and have refused to have a discussion, even when i have raised valid question. I have made my attempt to converse with someone who cannot play well with others. Revmqo (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. I quoted your word for word and then I took apart your wild, absurd speculation word by word. Just come up with a reliable source to back up the wild speculation and then we will have something to talk about.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Were you planning to fix this? Are you in that big of a hurry to scream and yell rather than having an adult discussion?--75.111.78.220 (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's simple to follow, Agent. You offered a link to Volokh's blog archive. I noted that that archive now has the relevant link out to a dating/relationship blog. I tracked down the relevant link [1] from the Chicago Tribune (that you could have offered in the first place). I noted that that link does not support your claim at all. Volokh says that non-US natives with a US citizen parent or parents are citizens. He does not say that they are natural born citizens eligible for the US Presidency. Simple. I only brought up anyone else's eligibility because I was trying to untangle your link. Try not to re-tangle it. Your favoured source (Volokh) is one of three legal experts cited in the Texas Tribune article [2] that you presumably consider definitive. You seem to have missed the Houston Chronicle [3], Austin American-Statesman [4], and Los Angeles Times [5] articles linked to in the Tribune, as well as the other two legal experts cited therein, that express far more doubt about Cruz's eligibility than you will allow. It seems you missed the widely-read Politico piece [6] and the transcript from the Sean Hannity Show below as well.--75.111.78.220 (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

"Dang, dude." Well argued, counselor. Aren't you the one that insisted below that you have spent "almost three decades in a courtroom"? You're not fooling anyone, um, dude.--75.111.78.220 (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Come back when you have a reliable source to back up your wild, absurd speculation.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Would you two (?) like to have an adult discussion about editing or not editing this article?--75.111.78.220 (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Good point to clear up, especially since so many republicans inferred that if Obama had been born in Kenya he would not have been qualified to be Prez; plus where is "natural born citizen" defined? Obviously, he got a lot of media today for his "attack dog"[7][8] criticism of Chuck Hagel, so someone could start on section on "U.S. Senate - 2013". CarolMooreDC 19:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's not get ahead of ourselves with anything that could be synthesis or original research. For what it's worth to interested editors there is actually a substantial article on just this subject: Natural-born-citizen clause. TomPointTwo (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is way too much speculation on this issue on this talk page and very little actual support presented from reliable sources. The Wikipedia article that you referred to is good, but it is still a Wikipedia and we cannot refer back to a Wikipedia article to support a position in an article in Wikipedia. That is clear rule of Wikipedia, but it does give a broad understanding. On the other hand, since we need to look at reliable sources and not mere editor speculation I would suggest that everyone who is wanted to edit the article on this topic should read a fairly straight-forward article from the Texas Tribune, which is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a conservative publication, and the article speaks directly to Cruz's situation and is already cited in this particular Wikipedia article. The citation for the article is as follows: Ferguson, John Wayne. Texplainer: Could Canadian-Born Ted Cruz Be President?, Texas Tribune, August 13, 2012. Please review it. It is clear and there are no questions about his eligibility.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No questions about his eligibility? The title of Ferguson's article is that very question. From the article: "The sticking point, says Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor of political science at the University of Houston, comes from what the definition of a 'natural born citizen' is, and whether Cruz’s Canadian birthplace is addressed by the law." From the article: "[Peter Spiro, a professor of constitutional law at Temple University] said it’s possible that a person could challenge that the laws granting citizenship at birth do not define what it is to be a natural-born citizen. In fact, the phrase 'natural-born citizen' is only used once in the U.S. Code — in Article 2 of the Constitution." For all your talk about reliable sources, you don't seem to be accurately representing their content. -197.136.42.3 (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you seem to the be one misrepresenting sources. The article raises questions, but then it concludes that Cruz is eligible to run for President. It is as simple as that. I have cited a reliable source that supports what I have stated. You have only your opinion. You are citing the article that I brought to the table and you are misrepresenting the material in the article. The article, the only detailed article directly on point, as far as I know, and it completely contradicts your POV. It is fine that you have a POV, but you must provide a reliable source to back it up. The reliable source that you are citing, the one I brought to the table, flat out concludes that Cruz is eligible to run for President. That is the conclusion and no amount of your picking and choosing quotes from earlier portions of the article can change that fact. Peter Spiro, the professor of constitutional law from Temple University, the professor that your quote out of context above, concludes quite clearly, "Ted Cruz didn’t naturalize. He was natural at birth." His clear conclusion does not square with your personal POV so you want to ignore that clear bright line rule that Professor Spiro has outlined. Please do not POV push. You are attempting above to focus on other quotes, which are only rhetorical questions, and are attempting to skip over the conclusion. You need to go find a reliable source that supports your POV pushing. My guess is that if there was any validity to these wild hair proposition then Cruz's political opponents would have pulled it out by now. But, so far, nothing, a just a few Wikipedian editors hoping that there was more there.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This hypothetical situation (Cruz running for POTUS) is not nearly as clear-cut as you seem to suggest. While you may have some articles that suggest he may be eligible, there are plenty of Constitutional scholars representing decades of consistent opinion that "natural born" means born within the United States, not Jus Sanguinus, but Jus Solis. In any event, there would clearly be grounds to file lawsuits which would have to go all the way to the Supreme Court, and this would likely be an impassable hurdle for a candidate. Revmqo (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, as I have stated over and over again, this page is full of mere speculation. Revmqo, in your comments above, you state that there are "plenty of Constitutional scholars representing decades of consistent opinion that "natural born" means born within the United States" but you don't name any. Also, you did not name anyone that has stated that Cruz's particular situation makes him ineligible. It is all just your personal opinion. Thanks for the unsupported wild speculation though.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

So sorry. Since you know how to edit Wiki, I made the assumption that you would also know how to perform a Google search. My bad. Here's a place for you to start your research. As you can see, the question of "Natural Born Citizen" isn't as simple as you suggest. And as far as I am concerned, Georgetown Law doesn't represent POV or OR, it represents leading scholarship. Revmqo (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The quotes provided (and the nature of the Texplainer article itself) do not support what you have stated, i.e. "It is clear and there are no questions about his eligibility." That is the sum of my POV and the only opinion I've expressed. In any case, I may push any POV I want on an article's Talk page, so long as I maintain WP:NPOV while editing. The Texplainer article does not "flat out conclude" that Cruz is eligible. It closes with, "Bottom line: Despite being born in Canada, Cruz can be considered a natural-born U.S. citizen because his mother was also a U.S. citizen who lived in the United States long enough for him to qualify, according to constitutional experts." Do you know what "can be considered" means? Spiro's conclusion squares perfectly with my personal POV, but you wouldn't know that because I had not expressed my personal POV on the matter of Cruz's eligibility. Your statements re the Texplainer article: "It is clear and there are no questions about his eligibility." and "You are attempting above to focus on other quotes, which are only rhetorical questions." Which is it--no questions or rhetorical questions? -196.201.225.142 (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks anon editor 196.201.225.142. You have made my point. Instead of providing another reliable source to support your POV pushing you just re-state what you have previously stated. You are still wrong. Based upon your strong opinion, if you have anything to support your opinion then you would have edited the main article by now, but you don't so you haven't.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It is rather odd to me that you accuse others of expressing POV when you so clearly do the same thing. I point this out not to sling mud, but to encourage you to watch what you accuse others of doing. You are entitled to your argument, but to suggest that this issue is clear-cut is simply wrong. If you think that the question wouldn't be litigated for years, then you are naive. Cruz may be eligible, but only the SCOTUS could conclusively determine this. In the interim, it appears to me, and to scholars that he MAY not be. Revmqo (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's go over this again. I am not naive. After almost three decades in a courtroom I know the law. There is no support for your personal opinion. I am going to repeat, again, that you cannot put your own personal opinion in the article. You need to provide support for your opinion by providing a reliable source. After going back and forth over and over again, you have not provided a reliable source for any of your wild speculation. Wild speculation, such as you have outlined on this talk page, cannot be placed in a BLP. Items placed in the article must be supported by a reliable source. I have provided a reliable source for what I have stated. You have not. I have asked you repeatedly to provide a reliable source and all I keep getting from you is: (1) misrepresentations of the Texplainer article, which I provided and which flat out supports my position AND (2) you have started to vandalize my talk page. I have asked you three times to stop vandalizing my talk page. Usually, the rule is quite simple, when an editor resorts to vandalizing the talk page of the editor with whom the first editor disagrees then the first editor does not any support for his/her position. In this situation it is quite clear that you don't have support for your wild speculation because you have not produced a reliable source after the several times that I have asked you to show me one. It is wild speculation because: (1) Cruz has not stated he is running for the Presidency, (2) there is no one on this planet, as of yet, who is suing him for lack of standing to run for the Presidency, and (3) all articles produced by law professors, so far, clearly state without a doubt that Cruz would be eligible. Cruz has only been in the U.S. Senate for about two months and he has not made one comment about running for the Presidency, but yet you are wildly stating--without the support of any reliable source--that there will be a court case and that Supreme Court justices are going to have to decide this matter. That is wild, unsupported, speculation and it cannot be placed in the article. It is as simple as that.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you take time to go back and read my comments? I provided you with a source in my response once you asked me to. I am not user:196.201.225.142 who you seem to have been in an argument with. I have never cited an article from "Texplainer" only from the Georgetown Law School. I am allowed to enter into conversations on this page and I should be given fair treatment and room to do so. I have not entered into a discussion of POV or changed the actual article to insert any. I have only raised the question that what you are arguing, and 196.201.225.142 too isn't clear-cut. My point is that there is no consensus. I fairly placed a warning on your page and you have attempted to hide it to hide your treatment of me. I am not worried about the history of my posts since anyone who reads the history will see your aggressiveness and bullying of other editors. Please take a deep breath and reenter the conversation without attacks. Revmqo (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I have not personally attacked you. Please do not make things up. I have boldly told you over and over again that wild speculation is not appropriate for the article. Cruz has not even stated that he is going to run for the Presidency. Your comments about my "aggressiveness and bullying" is just a way to attempt to dominate and control the conversation on this talk page. I have read through your discussions on your talk page and it looks like you have the reputation for aggressive and bullying behavior. Those who live in glass houses. . . I will state again, please provide a reliable source for the wild speculation that you have outlined on this page. The questions about Obama's standing NEVER made it to the Supreme Court because there is really no question there or here. You have sent me to the Georgetown article that focuses on McCain, not Cruz. If that minority position was controlling then there would have been a successful legal challenge to McCain standing, but those claims went nowhere either, just like the crazy Obama legal claims. My reliable source talks about Cruz's specific situation and yours does not. And history, i.e., the 2011 and 2012 legal challenges to McCain's standing, has proven your reliable source to be incorrect.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Again, go read my initial comment and your response.... then you will see where you took this down a prickly path.... Revmqo (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No, there is no "prickly path." That is just untrue. You are upset because I called you out about providing a reliable source and you did not like that. I have not personally attacked you. I just called you on a basic Wikipedia rule and then you got upset. I don't see this "prickly path." That is a figment of your imagination. I can't control how you respond to facts. Fact is that your engaged in wild speculation and I called you out on it. I asked you to provide a reliable source back up your wild speculation. And of course since it is mere wild speculation you have not provided a reliable source. This seems to bother you, but I will continue to demand that a reliable sources be provided before wild, crazy, speculative comments are placed in the article. That is all. You can vandalize my talk page all you want. You can go to incident page and ask for admins all you want, but the requirement, that I will focus on, is clear, there will need to be a reliable source to back up edits to the article. There is no support for the claim that Cruz can't run for President. There is no reliable source that states that Cruz is not eligible for the Presidency. That's a fact. You have not provided anything to support your wild speculation.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Wild speculation that there is no consensus?? Wild...really wild!! 198.228.228.43 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

@ExclusiveAgent you are full of BS! @Revmqo is exactly right. You seem to be lost in the discussion. How about actually following the thread? @Revmqo only raised a question and you have done nothing but bully him and other editors. Time for you to learn how to play well with others!! 198.228.228.44 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Deep breath everyone. If you want to put something in the article make sure you have a reliable source. Make sure it's not a synthesis of various reliable sources. And please, keep in mind that the subject matter you are adding must be pertinent to the topic at hand not not idle speculation about a potential future event which may unbalance a biographical article. Also, you're just super duper sure what you want put in can and should be put in then go ahead and do it. Just don't be super duper surprised if you're then forced to defend the specific merits of that addition. The bold, reverse, discuss format usually beats yelling at each other on the talk page. TomPointTwo (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll leave this here: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz: Constitutionally Qualified to be President? | The New American.--118.99.88.101 (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This is presented as a reliable source? I find it hard to believe that anyone would suggest that an organization aligned with the John Birch Society is reliable and free from POV. Just saying.... Revmqo (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Reliable and NPOV are not the same thing and so are not always mutually dependent. Much of it hinges on whether you want to use it as a primary or secondary source. If you want to use it to demonstrate that The New American believes "X" then fine, if you want to use it to demonstrate the veracity of an assertion made by the New American then you have to use a more rigorous criteria. Of course we don't know what the anon means because he dressed his comment up in pretentious snark. Maybe he'll let us know. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't there a Wikipedia search tool that checks the extent to which an external link is used? I'd guess that The New American is used as a source in some way in many other articles. It's a questionable source ("extremist") for Biographies of living persons articles, but it's certainly not out of bounds.--75.111.78.220 (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Pretentious snark? On my Wikipedia? I think I'll leave this here:

From The Sean Hannity Show, Mar. 6, 2013

Hannity: "Would you ever be eligible to run for president?"

Cruz: "[Laughs] Well . . ."

H: "C-can we end this for once and for all?"

C: "I-I'l leave that question t-to others to decide. I can tell you I've been in the Senate nine weeks, and my focus is one-hundred percent on the fight we have right here."

H: "No, meaning on the issue of natural born citizenship."

C: "Um-but-I-I will leave that to others to decide. M-M-My mother was a US citizen when I was born, but my focus i-i-is not on any such questions. I am one hundred percent focused--"

H: "Okay"

C: "--On the enormous--"

H: "Because you were born in Canada, but you're mother was a US citizen--"

C: "--Economic and fiscal--Correct. So I was a citizen the instant I was born by birth--by virtue of my mother [indistinct]

H: "Well, you're a natural born citizen, so you are eligible. Can I say it for you?

C: "I-I-I will leave that to others to decide."

H: "Alright, uh, amazing. Uh Thank--You're laughing. Why are you laughing?

C: [Laughs].

H: "Alright, I'm not trying to bother you. I-I just wanted to get this cleared up once and for all, and you're making it harder. Now the blogs are gonna go nuts."

C: "[Laughs] Well I-I-I appreciate it."

H: "I'm just looking into your future. I have the Hannity crystal ball, and I can see you running one day, but Senator God bless you. Thanks for being with us."

27.50.19.101 (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Tired memes are tired. TomPointTwo (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

X Y is X. Wonderful self-referential demonstration, Tom. I am left wondering how the above is a "tired meme". I've verified it as an accurate transcript from a nationally broadcast interview (which is not from, by any stretch of the imagination, a liberal source) with this article's subject addressing a question posed on this talk page. [9] (MP3, registration required).--75.111.78.220 (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's one farcical internet trope answering another, which you missed. Go be indignantly confused somewhere else.TomPointTwo (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming out of semi-retirement for that. We used to call that "NO U", right--to deflect from any substantive argument. Anything else? [edited]--75.111.78.220 (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Debating champion

Article says Cruz was a top debater, "winning the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship . . ."

As best I can tell from the listings at the American Forensic Association, Princeton didn't send anyone to the 1992 National Debate Tournament. In the list of top speakers, Cruz is not among the top 20, nor was a Princeton team among the top 25. Top speaker in 1992 was Charles Smith of Iowa. See results here: http://groups.wfu.edu/NDT/Results/NDT%20results%201987-1996%20%2841-50%29.pdf

Also see here: http://groups.wfu.edu/NDT/Results/results.html

Is the article referring to something other than the American Forensic Association's National Debate Tournament? That should be more clearly spelled out, if there is another contest referred to.Edarrell (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made changes to reflect information in source provided. Almost everything in this article was a gross overstatement of information contained in sources, but I have removed the fluff. Folks are welcome to put it back, but only with legitimate sources. Revmqo (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hagel?

How come there is nothing on this article about Cruz antagonism to Hagel? Cwobeel (talk)

Maybe you shouldn't be the editor to add it because you obviously have made up your mind with your use of the word "antagonism".--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Because you haven't added it yet. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ted Cruz is a gun rights advocate.

And here is my source: http://www.nra.org/Article.aspx?id=15654

I am adding him to that category. IronKnuckle (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Very good article, but when there is a reference to an "advocate" in the Wikipedia categories they mean someone whose main vocation is advocating for x. In this case, Ted Cruz would have to be advocating full time for gun rights, which is not what he does. His full time job is U.S. Senator. As a U.S. Senator he does advocate for gun rights, but it is not the ONLY issue that he advocates. He advocates for a balanced budget, for example, and he is pro-life, for example. He is not merely a gun rights Senator. Before he was a U.S. Senator his full time job was constitutional rights attorney, which involved working on gun rights issues, but was not the only constitutional issue that he advocated. He has handled tons of federalism case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court that have nothing to do with gun rights. Now, Ted Nugent is a rock singer, but right now he has a job whose main point is advocating for gun rights (i.e., spokesman for the NRA), therefore, Nugent meets the criteria of the category.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The point for the policy is that any one that ever expressed a pro-gun rights position would be eligible for the category, essentially making the category unless.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well you just admitted he advocated for gun rights, therefore he is a gun rights advocate. IronKnuckle (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, I did state without question that he does advocate for gun rights; however, that does not mean that he meets the criteria of the category. To meet the criteria of the category advocating for gun rights has to be a full time job where he gets paid to specifically advocate on the behalf of gun rights. You have not provided a reliable source that indicates that he works a full time job as a "gun rights advocate." Please provide one.----ExclusiveAgent (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz was born in Canada, so he is Canadian born. Neosiber (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this true. The article mentions the fact that Cruz was born in Calgary in two places: (1) in the info box, and (2) in the "Early life and education" section. There is no logical reason to mention to say that he is "Canadian-born" a third time. That is overkill.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate knowing. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

He could still be president, [10] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out another great article that specifically covers Ted Cruz's situation. It is not a general discussion of every person who thought about running or did run in the past for President, but the article that you pointed to goes over, just like the "Texplainer" article from the Texas Tribune above does, Ted Cruz's very specific situation and the article essentially, once again, blows away any arguments that Ted Cruz is ineligible to run for President. For the information of future editors of this Ted Cruz article you can see the article that editor Charles Edwin Shipp has pointed to here: Graham, David A. "Yes, Ted Cruz Can Be Born in Canada and Still Become President of the U.S.--The Calgary-born Texas senator is considering a bid for the Oval Office. Let's nip those birther questions in the bud right now.", The Atlantic, May 1, 2013 (David A. Graham is an associate editor at The Atlantic, where he oversees the Politics Channel. He previously reported for Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, and The National.)--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, for future editors, adding the phrase "Canadian-born" in the opening paragraph, not only is overkill, as I pointed out above, it also violates MOS (See here Wikipedia:OPENPARA), BLP, and NPOV.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, an article on whether or not Cruz is eligible to run for President doesn't end the discussion by any means. If it becomes a notable topic of discussion in the future, it's still suitable for his Wikipedia page. Dayewalker (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)