Posted on 08/23/2015 12:07:09 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Ever since Donald Trump, the mercurial businessman, media personality, and presidential candidate, proposed his immigration policy, centering on the mass deportation of up to 11 million human beings, reaction among conservatives has been decidedly mixed. Ann Coulter, for whom illegal immigration is the alpha and the omega of public policy, exalted that Trump could perform abortions in the White House, and she would not care. But Charles Krauthammer, writing in the National Review on Thursday, and George Will, in his latest column published Saturday, provided reality checks.
Krauthammer wondered what the practical political effects would be of reenacting the Trail of Tears on a mass scale would be on the Republican Party, poised as it is on the edge of its greatest victory since 1980. His answer is not very hopeful.
[SNIP]
Will, on the other hand, concentrates on how big government would have to grow to implement Trump’s plan.
[SNIP]
............. Even Ted Cruz, no slouch where it comes to illegal immigration, realizes that this would require a constitutional amendment, a dubious prospect at best.
The upshot is that there exist practical ways of dealing with illegal immigration that most people would not find abhorrent. These include securing the borders with a wall, cracking down on people who overstay their visas, eliminating the abuse of H1-B work visas where some companies are replacing American workers with cheaper foreign workers, and dealing with the illegals that are already here in some way that is not as obnoxious as mass deportation and not as craven as amnesty. Trump’s proposal, at least according to Krauthammer and Will, would likely lead to a liberal president who would enact mass amnesty, creating millions of Democratic voters that would reduce the Republican Party to permenant minority status.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
"Toto the dog wasn’t needed in Mobile, Ala., Friday night to pull the curtain from behind The Great and Mighty Trump. Trump let his own curtain flutter open, showing to much of the audience the humbug within.
In an hour-long verbal meanderthon at half-filled Ladd-Peebles Stadium, Trump allowed an atmosphere of electric excitement to dissipate, and then he split town without his promised post-show press conference. As I left the stadium, a red-hatted lady of my acquaintance spotted me and pulled me aside, saying: “Somebody needs to tell that man when to shut the you-know-what up. People were leaving in droves.”
Well, not entirely droves, but by my estimate, about 15–20 percent of the 18,000 or so attendees — Trump publicity organs had earlier said they expected up to 35,000 — had filed out before Trump wound up his many-versed hymn to his own toughness and deal-making skills....."
Scott Walker, the answer to a question that no one asked.
A dullard.
A snooze fest.
This country is turning to crap, and this guy is face down in his cereal bowl blowing bubbles in his milk.
Please stop pushing this guy, he brings nothing to the table but ZZZZZZZZZ.....
Your argument supports the idea that Trump isn’t credible.
You want a show horse president not a work horse president.
Got it.
Your boy Walker is an Establishment back up candidate..... That alone should clue you into Walker.
I prefer to say if you like what the Boehner and McConnel are doing, then vote for Jeb or Walker...
Sorry I will never vote for this Amnesty loving guy. The Walker campaig has been exposed, and now they are trying to spin there way out of what he said earlier this year about “path way to citizenship for the illegals” non sense.
That would come as a surprise to Walker. He certainly could have used their help in Wisconsin over the last 5 years, but as it turns out, he managed quite nicely without them.
Who is your candidate?
I’m sorry that you are all in for a dud. Really, I am.
Conservatives seem to have a unique ability want to pick people with zero leadership qualities to be their leaders.
As you can see, the whole country is just on fire for Scott “Sleep” Walker.
Who is your candidate?
I know the Left hates and fears him.
Will relentlessly attacked Reagan in a personal and political way from 74 on. He referred to supporters as “kamikaze’s” and advocated the “cleansing” of us from the party.
There’s a plethora of hitjob articles from him (easily found), and Mark Levin called him out as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R40lcJddbAc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
These aren’t the vanilla political observers or pundits as you kindly described them. No. They are the paid kneepad hitmen of the “Statists” and Rockefeller, Bush wing. Let them rot.
Why don’t you make a counter argument?
It would be interesting to hear your opinion on what they’re saying about current issues.
Propagandists willhammer Trump’s plan.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/422939/rick-perry-lets-it-fly-americans-prosperity-jim-geraghty
.....“Will we nominate a candidate who says the right thing, or a candidate who has a record of doing the right thing?” Perry said, appearing to not-so-subtly target the candidates who haven’t served in office before – Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina and Donald Trump. “You don’t have to rely on the rhetoric, you can check the record!”
“I’ll admit, I am not the best talker in this race,” Perry said to chuckles from the audience. “I mangle words. I’ve been known to lose my train of thought from time to time,” getting bigger laughs from the audience, remembering his debate performance from 2012.
“But I’ve never forgotten where I came from and what I believe. I’ve never forgotten the importance of hard work, the value of a dollar, and the importance of family.” He contended that Texas had demonstrated the truth that “limited government leads to unlimited opportunity.”..
Walker is a flip flopping nothingburger, open borders, pc feminist megyn kelly bandwagon jumper,alos his wife supports gay marriage. He has the spine of a jellyfish. Go home Scotty you may win wisconsin but thats it. You are GOPe
That would be the same as asking for a counterargument to a statement by Chris Matthews or a host of propagandists. Is there a reason to base an argument on an already false premise? Absolutely not because you have already lost by accepting the premise to be worthy of arguing.
I would be much more harsh, but allow me to submit an eloquent and perfectly worded response to these traitors, moderates, and elitists.
“I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.” – Reagan’s speech at the 2nd annual CPAC convention, March 1, 1975
Walker’s wife supports a gay female cousin who’s been with someone for decades, a woman who has a son who is a cousin to her sons.
This is not dissimilar to many people who have a gay family member.
Walker has steadfastly stated his position on marriage, it’s between a man and a woman.
Here is a great Reagan speech.
“In a related thread, an anti-Trump author complained that Trump’s mass deportation plan will cost $165 billion plus or minus a couple of billion. (I don’t remember the exact figure.”
And how was that figure arrived at? I submit someone pulled that number right out of their *ss.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.