But if Obama was born in another country an American mother he wouldn't meet the criteria?

Had I not replied elsewhere, I would have modded you up. NSA getting this tech is NOT about taking our citizen's rights. However, the more that they push to have open access to ENCRYPTED DATA, the more that America will see destruction of our real strength; economic.

Do note that China already said that all businesses must give access to encrypted data. Russia has always insisted on it. And France is saying that they want access to encrypted data (they, like ALL GOVs., access public comm). Shortly, all of the western govs. will be insisting on access to ENCRYPTED data.

Idiots like you are everywhere.
You think that America is the ONLY one that has loads of backdoors? You are a REAL idiot, or work for the Chinese gov.

terrorists? Spies? Foreign gov. interventions? Yes, that is what the NSA and the intel world is concerned with.
Child Molesters? Nope. NSA does not do civilian issues.

However, there are ppl that want to kill the NSA, and turn over this kind of technology to FBI.
THAT IS WHAT YOU SHOULD FEAR. If the FBI, or groups like DEA, WHO HAVE REAL POWER, should get this kind of power, then you should fear.
And what is needed with this, is to not allow congress to ever again remove the oversight, like the GOP did in 2005.

Yes, on lead acid batteries and no doubt on any batteries that do not have safety gear, while in the precense of gas/diesel. BUT, LI-ION battery all by themselves with safety gear? Nope.

Possibly though I'll hand it to Apple that they've had a fairly decent track record in figuring out products that people will actually use.

Outside of a fancy running watch I'm not sure what a smart watch is good for, then again I wasn't sure what a tablet was good for either.

Silly me, I tend to base my viewing decisions on whether a particular show is good or not, whether the "right" people share my particular taste is irrelevant.

By taking pride in not seeing a single episode you're not celebrating refined taste, you're celebrating ignorance.

Did that argument sound convincing while you were writing it because it sure as hell isn't convincing reading it.

There is a massive difference between an ad created by the candidate's team, starring the candidate, and explicitly approved by the candidate, and a rumour started by self-declared supporters of the candidate.

How?

Hmmm. I worked on USA PAT act in 2005-6. I was born in 1959, and had neighbors that had numbers tattooed on their arms. I heard stories from 1 family, while the other would never talk about: his eyes just got a dead look on them when I asked.

The fact is, that there is a difference between spying on your own citizens in general, vs. spying on terrorists and traitors. It is a hard fine line to walk.

And who in the west, considers their own citizens to be enemies?

No, the idiots are the ones that do not realize that this has been going on since the 1800s, or that it will stop.
What is needed is not to stop the spying on the digital comm, but to make sure that it is not abused.
The NSA has GENERALLY, not abused things. However, when I worked on the PAT act back in 2005-6, and I saw the CONgress GOP stop the oversight, I KNEW that issues were going to come.
The NSA has NO power. As such, they are not capable of abusing things.
The real problem comes in when I hear fools say that NSA should be killed off, or that govs should not have the right to spy on digital comm. Nothing could be more foolish and is typically spoken by those that do not have a grasp of what is going on.

That's plausible, I don't know what criticism you've actually received or what you said to trigger it.

My only point is that there's a lot of racist criticism of Obama and there will be sexist criticism of Hillary. Even if you're not doing it consciously you can be caught if you're unaware of the origin of the criticisms you make.

Incorrect.

It was Hillary Clinton supporters who created the rumour, "camp" implies that it was started by people acting under her direction, I'm not aware of any evidence to that effect.

Either way the right is where it actually took hold which is an important distinction. For a comparable issue look at Mitt Romney's Mormonism, that started as a controversy on the right, and when the general election came around it mostly went away. There was still media chatter but very few people on the left actually cared and no one on the right wanted to turn on their own candidate.

Frankly the number of people talking about Cruz's eligibility are a tiny subset of those who did it for Obama, and I suspect that most of those are just doing it so they don't get called hypocrites.

Remember the years of birther nonsense over Obama's birth certificate, conspiracy theories that he was ineligible because he was supposedly born outside the US or a dual citizen at some point? Notice the deafening silence over Ted Cruz's eligibility for whom both of those apparently disqualifying things are established fact?

What do you think the basis is for all those claims that he hates America, or he's a closet Muslim doing mischievous Muslim things, or the obsession with including his middle name "Hussein"? There's a really obvious "he's not one of us" subtext to the whole thing.