There is a thread in here about that.
The states keep a spot open for the major parties. Whatever name the Reps and Dems send in, it goes on the ballot. Arizona tried to pass a law requiring presidential candidates to prove eligibility and it got voted down.
Ok, you find out your opponant is 32 years old. What do you do now?
Also in that thread. Congress’ job is to certify the eligibilty of the electors, not the candidates.
Well, to be fair, a lot of them are just irredeemably stupid. Don’t count out all the people who believe whatever people tell them.
There’s this one annoying American over here who is not satisfied with Obama’s birth certificate and is very vocal about it. (We get all the nuts.) He insists that since it says “Certificate of Live Birth” instead of “Birth Certificate,” that is proof positive of shady goings on and it’s not at all the same thing as a “Birth Certificate.” I never took this “Birther” crap seriously to begin with, so I never followed it too much. Easy to avoid until you get withing hearing of Bozos like the one just described.
But recently I happened across my own birth certificate that I sent off for some years ago and squirreled away with my other records. It’s from a US state on the mainland. (Not Texas; that’s just where we moved right before I turned six years old.) Lo and behold, my own birth certificate says “Certificate of Live Birth.” I guess that’s just the wording some states choose. I would show it to that clown I mentioned, but I generally try to avoid him, and he wouldn’t care anyway.
It’s probably worth remembering, in the interests of bipartisanship, that the whole issue was originally dragged up by the Clinton campaign during the primaries.
Of course it’s also worth remembering that the Clintonistas eventually grudgingly admitted that Obama was a natural-born citizen and thus eligible to run, but boy howdy they would have been all over that if they could have made it stick. The Clintons were nasty.
Well, it is a legitimate question. It’s just that it’s been repeatedly answered, to the satisfaction of any sane person who looks at the evidence, regardless of our place on the political spectrum. The more interesting question suggested by your post is “Does Palin really believe it, or is it just a convenient way to score points for whatever she’s up to?”
I liked Palin when she first showed up on the national stage, but now she’s just creeping me out. I believe she’s up to no-good, that won’t end well for the country.
Birthers are one of four things, or a combination thereof:
In terms of the first - you can’t argue with crazy conspiracy theorists. Birthers, Truthers, Moon Hoaxers, whatever…They can’t be argued with, and their self-sustaining delusions do not allow for discussion.
In terms of the second - they’re incapable of seeing their own logical flaws. They are a living example, in many ways, of the Duning-Kruger effect. And like many people who on some level feel that they can’t follow logic, they reject logical information when given to them.
In terms of the third - well, I don’t really think I need to talk much about that, other than to say that for these people, it is an apocalypse of epic proportions that someone who doesn’t look like this now runs the country.
The fourth type is, IMHO, the most evil and most insidious. They are not crazy and not stupid (although they may be racist), but they know how to rile up people from the first three categories to create ongoing bullshit to distract people from other, more serious issues.
Cite?
Yeah, this is the thing that burns me up. My birth certificate from Pennsylvania says Certificate of Live Birth. I was born in the 60s. My son’s birth certificate from California says Certificate of Live Birth. He was born in 2009. Where the hell do they get off saying that a “Certificate of Live Birth” is not a birth certificate?
Tell everyone about it. Do you really think the parties themselves would risk nominating an ineligible candidate and wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on someone who can’t hold the office?
If not, do you really think the opposition party would allow the candidate to take office?
Constitutional crisis? Well, maybe. But that’s what would have happened if Obama had been unable to prove his eligibility. As it actually happened, he released his birth certificate, and everyone who mattered was satisfied.
That one’s true. The story originated with disgruntled Clintonistas.
I think that some of the birthers are racist or crazy, but I think its stretching to paint such a large population with broad terms like that. Personally, I attribute most of it to a form of intellectual laziness. That is, someone doesn’t like him as President, but can’t really substantiate it, it may be for racial reasons, but I think in the case of a number of birthers, a majority of whom are Republican, it really just boils down to him being a Democrat. It’s difficult to say why he’s so much worse as a president than Bush, not only because he was a poor president, but because Obama has continued a number of his policies. As such, instead of substantiating why he’s a bad president and Bush wasn’t, to resolve the cognitive dissonance, it’s just plain easier to say he’s not qualified.
Yes, being a birther requires selectively ignoring a lot of evidence, but I think that’s just a matter of further intellectual laziness and confirmation bias. I think it actually is a lot easier to believe a conspiracy, even a really far-fetched one, than it is to get a straight-ticket Republican (or Democrat too, for that matter) to explain why such relatively minor differences between two people result in one being a good leader and the other being the epitome of evil.
Didn’t originate on the ‘left’.
Originated with a nut who was a precinct captain and volunteer on Hillary’s campaign, who then contacted a failed Dem politician who was a Truther attorney.
Two nuts basically.
This is, technically, false, but there’s an element of truth in your intent here.
The Birther story was invented by PUMA, who were a small group of disgruntled Clinton supporters. The group claimed 10,000 members but the actual active number was probably not more than a few hundred and it’s quite possible PUMA was really no more than a core of a few dozen shit disturbers, some of whom seem a bit crazy, who spent most of their time engaged in Internet flame wars with other nuts.
So it was absolutely not the Hilary Clinton CAMPAIGN that started it. It was a group of Clinton supporters, not connected to the campaign and in fact in opposition to Clinton after Clinton conceded the nomination.
However, is is, sadly, true that this idiocy started with a few Democrats, bitter over their nominee losing.
PUMA had nothing to do with the Clinton Campaign, and they were probably a Republican front group anyway.
Okay, that’s a bit much.
I feel the same way. It really seems to be a whole lot of ruckus over what is largely a technicality, similar to the one that made Dick Cheney move to Wyoming in order to be Bushes running mate. You would think they would come up with something that had a little more substance like election fraud. I particularly find it amusing that just a few years ago is was Schwarzenegger Republicans who were arguing against the birth requirement.
I don’t think anyone believes that it’s anything more than a technicality. I mean, the danger of King George being elected has passed, we can presumably agree.
Perhaps, but give Americans a little more credit: they state their convictions in a very intellectual way:
Wow. That last part looks like a “truther-birther” conspiracy theory.
It has been mentioned before in other threads but, it says “Certificate of Live Birth” because it is not your actual birth certificate. The doubters seem unable to wrap their brains around these two points: [ol]
[li]Your actual birth certificate is kept on file, most likely in the county you were born. [*]When you request a copy they send you a certified copy of the birth certificate, not the actual document filled out by the doctor when you were born.[/li][/ol] NOBODY that I am aware of has their actual, original birth certificate, they only have certified copies.
As an example - here is a link to a website that appears to be birther claiming to show Ronald Reagan’s birth certificate. However, notice at the top of the document it says “Certification of Vital Record” and in the lower left corner it says “Date Issued, June 20, 1991”. Clearly this is not the actual birth certificate, or “long form birth certificate”. It is a certified copy of the actual document. There may be more detail on it since it shows handwritten information, but it is just as “fake” as the Certificate of Live Birth issued by the State of Hawaii for Obama. Of course good luck getting a birther to ever concede that point.
“Birth certificate” is just a colloquial way to say “certificate of live birth.” That’s the only difference I’ve ever been able to note.
I don’t know if they still do it, but some states used to issue “certificates of live birth” that were merely photocopies of the original birth record created at the birth of a child. The example of this on Wikipedia shows that it says “certificate of live birth” at the top, which means the original birth record said the exact same thing. Getting caught up in the wording of “certificate of live birth” versus “birth certificate” is useless because they mean the exact same thing and some original birth records do indeed call it a “certificate of live birth.”
Birth certificate = certificate of live birth
Original birth record = the original “certificate of live birth”/“birth certificate”
There is a difference between a long form and short form.